Court Unanimously Upholds $13,000 Fine Against Couple for Refusing ‘Gay Marriage’ Ceremony

lr farmALBANY, N.Y. — A New York appeals court has unanimously upheld a $13,000 fine against a couple who declined to host a same-sex “wedding” at their farm because of their religious convictions not to facilitate the sins of others.

As previously reported, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who are Roman Catholics, own Liberty Ridge Farms in Schaghticoke, a 50-acre facility that hosts a number of family-friendly attractions. In 2012, Jennie McCarthy and Melisa Erwin of Albany contacted the facility to schedule their “wedding” ceremony, as the venue regularly hosts weddings and other outings, but when the Giffords realized that the two were lesbians, they informed the women that they could not be of assistance.

“That’s when [Cynthia] said, ‘Now we have a problem,’” Erwin explained. “This is a decision that my husband and I have made. …. [Y]ou can’t do it here.”

McCarthy and Erwin then filed a complaint with the New York Division of Human Rights, alleging discrimination. Others began to write angry messages on the farm’s Facebook page, such as “Gay dollars are just as green as straight dollars.”

In August 2014, Administrative Law Judge Migdalia Peres ruled in favor of the two women, despite the Gifford’s notation that hosting the ceremony would violate their religious beliefs.

“The policy to not allow same-sex marriage ceremonies on Liberty Ridge Farm is a denial of access to a place of public accommodation,” she wrote in her decision.

Peres fined Liberty Ridge Farms $13,000, citing “the goal of deterrence” for other businesses who might adhere to their convictions and decline to personally accommodate same-sex celebrations. $1,500 of that amount was be paid to each the lesbians who were turned down by the facility, which also serves as the Gifford’s home.

  • Connect with Christian News

Liberty Ridge Farms was also ordered to provide proof that they have trained their employees not to refuse requests from homosexuals. A poster noting that the business is subject to human rights law was additionally to be displayed prominently at the business.

The Giffords soon decided to close the wedding venue altogether, while keeping other parts of their farm operational, in order to avoid violating their religious beliefs. The couple also filed an appeal against the ruling with the The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division.

But on Thursday, the court unanimously upheld Peres’ ruling, stating that the Giffords are welcome to believe as they wish about marriage, but cannot live out those religious convictions in running their business—reducing religion to an opinion as opposed to a practice.

“The Giffords are free to adhere to and profess their religious beliefs that same-sex couples should not marry, but they must permit same-sex couples to marry on the premises if they choose to allow opposite-sex couples to do so,” Judge Karen Peters’ wrote.

Attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) expressed disappointment in the ruling, stating that the couple should not be forced to violate their religious convictions.

“We had hoped that the court would recognize that the government has clearly gone too far,” said co-counsel James Trainor. “The Constitution prohibits the government from forcing anyone to help communicate messages that conflict with their core beliefs about marriage. The Giffords welcome all people to the farm, but not all messages or events.”

“All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards,” added co-counsel Caleb Dalton. “The government went after both this couple’s freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property. The court should have rejected this unwarranted and unconstitutional government intrusion, so we will consult with our client regarding appeal.”


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
  • afchief

    The gaystapo will not stop or be happy until they force their perverted and deviant behavior on churches to marry them.

    Watch!

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      atchief – you are correct. It is a whore, blasphemous nation and God will punish the perpetrators and their lies causing oppression to the Christians.

      • Valri

        Meanwhile Christians continue to oppress and bully homosexuals.

        • Violet Vanderhelm

          Only false Christians. My opinion: I am a devout evangelical Christian, following Old/New testament doctrine and laws. My mom was the same. We do not believe in the homosexual life style but love and respect the individual. Old/New Testament calls homosexuality a sin and further states homosexuals will not gain salvation or eternal life. My parents owned a restaurant and we served homosexuals with the same good service, dignity, respect as heterosexuals as it was food and drinks. We always found them of good character and nice personality and great tippers. We did not discuss our beliefs about homosexuality with our homosexual clients. We knew some of our customers were open homosexuals as they came in with partners but there was no physical or public display of affection – we did not care for that display even if they were heterosexuals and I do not care to do that with the men in my life either. I do not know if we had a bakery would we have written homosexual messages on cakes or figurines or how that would play out. When you are open for a public business you do not know which customers are heterosexual and which are homosexual – all people should be served equally and fairly. I am still not sure about the event catering, or bakery issues, or issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Sinners come in many flavors: homosexuals, pornographers, drug abusers, prostitutes, murderers, thieves, liars, male/female whores, wife-beaters, child-abusers, etc, who go to public places for service and the representatives selling to them do not know what type of sinner they are. We are all sinners to some degree or another. All sins are bad – some more heinous, such as murder or physically hurting people, or stealing or lying, especially under oath. Will God hold Christians accountable for baking cakes for homosexuals if that is what state or federal law dictates? It is not as if Christians were given a choice or had a chance to render a direct vote. This is what the legislature, judiciary branch has decided without the Christian input. Is the alternative any better, fighting a cause in courts and losing and paying out monetary damage? I suppose as Christians we should be grateful to God and the government for permitting us thus far to worship Jesus Christ and Old/New Testament laws and attend churches. Soon enough those rights will be denied Christians when the anti-Christ gains power and the one-world government with the mark becomes more evident. When Lord Jesus Christ returns He will wipe away all sinners, sins and establish a pure, righteous, holy government on His shoulders. Christians have to wait until then. Maranatha Lord Jesus!

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      Afchief – you are correct. Coming soon. – God help Christians.

  • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

    Speaking as a Christian:

    They should count themselves fortunate. There will come a day when the level of persecution will be such that the Christian will be locked up for the mere mention of being of the true faith. Currently we’re just seeing fines and jail for openly refusing governmental overreach of constitutional boarders.

    But soon the idea of Christian expression will be delegated to the house. Although, there has already been fines for home Bible studies.

    Anyway…Christians shouldn’t be surprised by the progressiveness of postmodern America the North American Union.

    • SFBruce

      I wonder if there are other classes for which New York offers anti-discrimination protections you’d consider to be “governmental overreach?” They include race, religion and ethnicity, and are based on the notion that business open to the public should be prepared to serve the entire public. It’s simply an effort to promote greater fairness.

      • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

        Well…first we have to recognize you are arguing from redefined principles (postmodernism). In the past, discrimination didn’t include marriage for same sex.

        Whereas, all other forms of discrimination reflect original intent (morality) and cultural identity; the same sex issue intimately contradicts the nature of the first amendment in regards to religion.

        No civilization, except maybe Sodom and Gomorrah, recognized this type of union. I know, I know, homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. That’s not my point.

        My original post is not challenging the decision that was handed down. It’s obvious that laws are taking a more ominous direction in what constitutes morality. My argument is that Christians should expect things to get worse.

        • SFBruce

          “…the same sex issue intimately contradicts the nature of the first amendment in regards to religion.”

          How is that the case? You’re still perfectly free to believe as you choose, align yourself with a church that reflects that, and voice those opinions freely as you’re doing today. While you seem to believe that physical intimacy between members of the same sex is objectively wrong, not everyone holds that view, including many Christians. And don’t forget, LGBT people and our supporters have First Amendment rights as well.

          The only way I see things getting worse for those who share your view about homosexuality is, as more and more people come to view LGBT people as their equals, antipathy for us will become less socially acceptable.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            “You’re still perfectly free to believe as you choose…”

            You’re correct in your words, not the constitution’s. But it’s a matter of recognizing the 1st amendment as it is written; the founding order of a new nation…ahem…under God; and the moral boundaries that were never questioned, until now.

            While you seem to believe… not everyone holds that view, including…

            You’re absolutely correct! No argument here. However, I would question the so called lukewarm Laodiceans Christians on their moral devaluation.

            LGBT people and our supporters have First Amendment rights as well.

            Well…I believe you have special rights, but again, that’s to be expected in THIS generation. The first amendment was written as a form of protection on a human basis not sexual predisposition.

            The only way I see things getting worse

            And from what I see happening in the world, it’s just right around the corner, which is my whole argument.

          • SFBruce

            It sounds as though you’re saying only those who share your religious values have first amendment rights, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Doesn’t freedom of conscience include the right to believe physical love between two adults is perfectly moral?

            I see nothing “special” about the right to housing, employment and access to public accommodations regardless of one’s sexual orientation, a protection which still doesn’t exist at the federal level nor in 31 states even though 64% of all Republican voters support such protection, according to a recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            It sounds as though you’re saying only…

            Nope! Not saying that. But where does the line get drawn if there are no objective boundaries. Doesn’t society run a chance of losing control if we define everything by freedom of conscience, which is just another way of saying “do what thou wilt…”?

            physical love

            I know we tend to connect words together to serve a point, and although I’m not finished with my studies, the concept of love has never been a true principle of physicality. Plus, just because something is loved, doesn’t mean it is moral. There again, we need to establish the authorship of the word and the boundaries there of.

            I see nothing “special” about the right to housing,..

            Not sure of what you’re trying to say here. The government could enact these benefits without infringing on the ceremonial marriage side of things.

          • SFBruce

            1. Freedom of religion is the one civil liberty which is absolute. We’re free to believe anything at all, but when it comes to acting on those beliefs, we’re sometimes constrained. For example, a racist is perfectly free to believe the races shouldn’t mix, but a restaurant owner can’t act on such a belief without some legal problems.

            2. “…the concept of love has never been a true principle of physicality.” I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but whatever one’s sexual orientation, today romantic love is generally what drives two individuals to want to form a family and share a life together.

            3. When I made the claim that LGBT people have first amendment rights, you said that you thought we have “special rights;” I thought you were referring to the kind of non-discrimination laws which got the Giffords into their legal problems. Am I wrong about your meaning? If you mean religious marriage when you refer to “ceremonial” marriage, I expect you already understand that churches remain free to teach what they like, and to bless only those unions which they deem in accordance with their doctrine. Legally, same sex marriage is an issue only indirectly here; the Giffords operate a business, not a church.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            I would love to keep advancing this discussion, however, I have other work to do. Thanks for your interest in my post. I’m sorry we couldn’t reach a complete understanding between our opposing positions.

            Have a great weekend.

            Tchau….:-)

          • acontraryview

            “Doesn’t society run a chance of losing control if we define everything by freedom of conscience”

            You mean like business owners making choices regarding who they will serve based upon their conscience? Or an elected official decided which citizens they will perform their duties for based upon their conscience?

            “Plus, just because something is loved, doesn’t mean it is moral.”

            What is considered “moral” and what is not will vary from person to person. Our laws are not based upon a particular person, or groups, view of what is moral and what is not. Our laws are based upon our Constitution.

            “without infringing on the ceremonial marriage side of things.”

            The ceremonial side of marriage has not been infringed. Religious entities are completely free to decide which marriages they will perform and which they will not.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            What is considered “moral” and …

            Exactly! This is postmodernist, do what thou wilt thinking. I’m not arguing your position. I’m just adhering to a more objective form of morality. Ones that you know, but scorn.

            Religious entities are completely free…

            I’m starting to see where pressure is be put on the churches to perform same sex marriages.

            Like I said, initially. It’s only going to get worse for the Christian.

          • acontraryview

            “I’m just adhering to a more objective form of morality.”

            How are you views of what is moral and what is not more objective then the views of others regarding morality?

            “Ones that you know, but scorn.”

            What moral objectives do you believe I “scorn”?

            “I’m starting to see where pressure is be put on the churches to perform same sex marriages.”

            Really? Examples?

            “It’s only going to get worse for the Christian.”

            What is going to get worse for the Christian?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            How are you views of what is moral and what is not more objective

            Please, read my INITIAL post. :-/

            What moral objectives do you believe

            Please, read my INITIAL post. :-/ :-/

            Really? Examples?

            Do your own research. I’ve been down this road before. I do a google search, post the link and then just have post that asks for another example, blah, blah, blah….

            What is going to get worse for the Christian?

            Now, I’m starting to think you’re trolling. If that’s the case, please move on.

          • acontraryview

            “Please, read my INITIAL post. :-/”

            I did. It does not answer my question.

            “Please, read my INITIAL post. :-/ :-/”

            I did. It does not answer my question regarding what moral believes you believe I scorn.

            “Do your own research.”

            If you can’t backup your claim, then you can’t. No worries.

            “Now, I’m starting to think you’re trolling.”

            Asking questions that the other person is unwilling to answer is not “trolling”.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            I did. It does not answer my question.

            That’s because you’re not too bright and you’re probably just trolling.

            I did. It does not answer my question regarding…

            Please, read the above response about brightness and trolling. :-/

            If you can’t backup your claim,

            My claims are as clear as day on the Internet. If you can’t do a simple search, then you’re trolling.

            Asking questions that…

            Asking IGNORANT questions that are so obvious a six year old could find them, IS!!!

          • acontraryview

            “That’s because you’re not too bright and you’re probably just trolling.”

            No. It’s because it didn’t answer my question.

            “My claims are as clear as day on the Internet. If you can’t do a simple search”

            It’s common that people who are unable to back up their claims attempt to deflect from that by suggesting that the OTHER person do the research to back up what stated.

            “Asking IGNORANT questions that are so obvious a six year old could find them, IS!!!”

            Given that you have been unable to produce the answers, should I assume that you are not six years old?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Thanks for your input, but I’m moving on. Maybe in the future, we can talk about this subject again

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Some of the churches from the following protestant Christian denominations (Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterians) are marrying gay couples and having gay church leaders on all levels for fear of being branded unloving and not politically correct. Not sure if the diocese or hierarchies (whatever they are called in each sect) approve it or not. Perhaps they are doing this due to fear of claims against them in law suits by the gays, perhaps wanting money in the dishes, perhaps for their image to be politically correct. I do not know why they are preaching falsities or doing wrong actions, misleading the public. They have to answer to God on judgment day for that. Evangelical churches are stricter and adhere to the tenets of the Old/New Testament and have stronger morals.

          • acontraryview

            “for fear of being branded unloving and not politically correct.”

            Why do you believe that was their motivation?

            “Perhaps they are doing this due to fear of claims against them in law suits by the gays”

            There would be no basis for a lawsuit from gays.

            “I do not know why they are preaching falsities or doing wrong actions, misleading the public.”

            That would be a matter of opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours.

            “Evangelical churches are stricter and adhere to the tenets of the Old/New Testament and have stronger morals.”

            Then I’d be interested in knowing your thoughts are these divorce statistics:

            Baptists 29%
            Mainline Protestants 25%
            Mormons 24%
            Catholics 21%
            Lutherans 21%

            Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce…the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average” of 4.2/1000 people.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Steven I agree but the wold is getting worse and unreasonable as are some of the writers who are non-Christians writing on these posts. You are throwing your pearls before swine and Jesus Christ not to do that – it is useless after a period of time and to no avail. God has to take over on the witnessing and conversion. I.E. Paul was killing Christians until Lord Christ revealed himself.

          • acontraryview

            “But it’s a matter of recognizing the 1st amendment as it is written;”

            The 1st Amendment provides two protections regarding religion. First, that the government will not impose a state religion. Second, that the government will not create laws which prohibit the expression of religious belief. In what way do anti-discrimination laws violate either of those provisions?

            “ahem…under God”

            What is your basis for believing that the nation was founded “ahem…under God”?

            “Well…I believe you have special rights”

            What rights to gay people have that other do not?

            “The first amendment was written as a form of protection on a human basis not sexual predisposition.”

            Gay people are human.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            The 1st Amendment provides…

            Please verify your wording of the 1st Amendment.

            What is your basis for believing…

            Mainly, History and sociology

            What rights to…

            A class of individuals protected for their sexual proclivities? I’d say that qualifies as special rights.

            Gay people are human.

            Yes, but their behaviors are immoral.

          • acontraryview

            “Please verify your wording of the 1st Amendment.”

            It’s not my wording – it is the wording: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

            “Mainly, History and sociology”

            Could you please be more specific?

            “A class of individuals protected for their sexual proclivities? I’d say that qualifies as special rights.”

            Perhaps you are unaware that protections regarding sexuality are not based upon any specific activities, thus the word “proclivities” doesn’t apply. Further, perhaps you are unaware that protections regarding sexuality apply to all sexualities, not just homosexuality. Since they apply to all sexualities, how are they “special”?

            “Yes, but their behaviors are immoral.”

            While you are certainly entitled to your view that homosexuality is immoral, that view does not serve as a basis for our laws.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            ” the free exercise ”

            Ohhhh….the FREE EXERCISE. Interesting! But I’m sure you’ll come back with some ignorance that redefines “free exercise” to mean “limited exercise” without thinking of original intent.

            Could you please be more specific?

            No! I’m not going to be giving you a history lesson that you’re not interested in.

            thus the word “proclivities” doesn’t apply.

            Sure it does! :-/

            that protections regarding sexuality apply

            Do you recognize what you’re saying in regards to sexuality. It reads like something out of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            that view does not serve as a basis for our laws.

            Now! They don’t serve, now! That’s my point. We’re running around in circles about arguments that are being recognized from TWO different world views.

            I’m not arguing the changing progressive behavior of this society in this generation. Not in the least. These are the truths you hold on to. I’m saying that because they progress “away from God,” they will establish more and more persecution towards TRUE believers.

          • acontraryview

            “But I’m sure you’ll come back with some ignorance that redefines “free exercise” to mean “limited exercise” without thinking of original intent.”

            There have always been limits on “free exercise”. The key word before that is “prohibiting”. That does not mean that there can be no restrictions. You cannot go out in front of your house at 3 am and start proclaiming your religious beliefs through a bull horn. Religions are not allowed to utilize human sacrifice. You are not allowed to stand up in a crowded restaurant and start preaching. You are not allowed in pass out religious pamphlets in certain places. There are restrictions. The 1st Amendment does NOT provide the protection that citizens are free to exercise their religious beliefs in any place, at any time, and in any manner they care to. I f you believe that to be true, you are mistaken.

            “No! I’m not going to be giving you a history lesson that you’re not interested in.”

            If you can’t back up your claim, then you can’t. No worries.

            “Sure it does!”

            Proclivity: “a tendency to choose or do something regularly; an inclination or predisposition toward a particular thing.”

            Activities are not covered under anti-discrimination laws. Sexuality is not an activity.

            “Do you recognize what you’re saying in regards to sexuality.”

            Yes, I do. All sexualities are covered under anti-discrimination laws. So, I’ll ask again: What “special” rights do homosexuals have that others do not?

            “It reads like something out of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

            If you go back into Jewish history, you’ll find that the story of S&G contained no mention of homosexuality. That was added in approximately 500 AD to the Christian version of the story.

            “That’s my point.”

            Your point is that things change? Wow. Insightful!

            “I’m saying that because they progress “away from God,” they will establish more and more persecution towards TRUE believers.”

            Persecution in what form?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            There have always been limits

            All this get’s into original intent and how the country was started and by what MORAL standard.

            If you can’t back up your claim,

            Some of the questions you post are taught in primary school. Come on!

          • acontraryview

            “All this get’s into original intent ”

            Are you suggesting that the original intent was the citizens would be free to exercise their belief in any way, at any time, and in any place they care to? If so, then are you also suggesting that any limitations on religious expression are unconstitutional?

            “Some of the questions you post are taught in primary school. Come on!”

            Then they should be quite easy for you to answer, should they not? Yet, you continue to fail to answer them. Did you not attend primary school?

            I’ll ask again: What special rights do homosexuals have that non-homosexuals do not?

            Persecution in what form?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Moving on. Spent too much of my day here. Thanks though. I found the dialog interesting.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            islam promotes human sacrifice or destruction of non-muslims for the cause of Mohammed or Allah, and the world does nothing to stop it.

          • acontraryview

            There are some people who claim to be Muslim who justify heinous acts by citing the Koran. Just as there have been people who claim to be Christian who justified heinous acts by citing the Bible. It would without merit, however, to suggest that Islam “promotes human sacrifice or destruction of non-Muslims”. The vast majority of Muslims support neither of those views.

            From the Bible:

            Deuteronomy13:6 “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death.”

            “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you,” (Deut. 22:13-21).

            Yet, despite those passages being in the Bible, you don’t see Christians promoting the death of non-Christians or the stoning of non-virgins, do you?

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Some of the laws were changed by Christ in the New Testament and called for remedial teaching and forgiveness if the people repented. God ordered the flood which killed all the evil people except Noah and his family. If God may cause some killings and destruction as in Noah’s day, it is for a good cause and He knows the reasons that are unknown to us which He will disclose on judgment day.

          • acontraryview

            Jews follow the Old Testament only. Do you see Jews suggesting that non-believers should be killed and non-virgins stoned to death? Of course not. That something appears in a text does not mean that people follow it.

            It is unreasonable to suggest that because words appear in the Koran that therefore all Muslims adhere to the passages. The vast majority of Muslims do not adhere to the beliefs that all non-believers should be killed nor that Sharia Law should be a basis for civil law. If you need proof of that, simply look to Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Gay people are human and to be treated with respect and love but they are sinners nonetheless. “prohibit the expression of religious belief.” The caterers are prohibited from expressing their religious belief that they do not wish to do work related to homosexuality. Well the US will impose a state religion when the muslims become a majority and force Sharia Law, if they are unchecked. Since muslims is the only pseudo religion (political entity disguised as religion) that combines political and religious law under one state and will be enforced by the islam government as seen in the middle eastern countries governed by islam and sharia law currently.

          • acontraryview

            “Gay people are human and to be treated with respect and love”

            I’m glad you have that view.

            “but they are sinners nonetheless.”

            According to the Bible, everyone is a sinner, are they not?

            “prohibit the expression of religious belief.”

            Let me explain what the “prohibit the expression thereof” means. What that means is that the government is not allowed to pass a law that states, for example, that citizens may not express their Hindu beliefs. What it does NOT mean is that there can be no restrictions on how religious belief is expressed. It does NOT mean that citizens are allowed to express their religious beliefs at any time, in any manner, and in any place they care to. There are restrictions. For example, I am not free to go out in front of my house at 3 am and start expressing my religious beliefs through a bullhorn. Churches are not allowed to ring their bells before a certain hour in the morning. I am not allowed to stand up in the middle of a restaurant and start shouting my religious beliefs. I am not allowed to walk up to strangers in an airport and solicit donations for my church. And I am not allowed to use my religious beliefs as a basis for turning away customers in contravention to the law.

            “The caterers are prohibited from expressing their religious belief that they do not wish to do work related to homosexuality.”

            No, they are not. They are free to put up signs that say: “We believe marriage is only between a man and a woman”. They are free to place posters with scripture citing homosexuality as a sin anywhere they care to on their property. They are free to tell customers that they believe that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage between two citizens of the same gender is a sin. They are completely free to express their religious beliefs. What they are NOT free to do is turn away a customer based solely upon their religious beliefs.

            Here’s the issue with allowing religious belief to be a basis for determining who a business will serve and who it will not: Religious belief is a personal thing. There is no way to determine if a person’s stated religious belief is sincere or not. Because of that, any business could turn down anyone of a particular group, simply by saying that doing so is based upon their sincerely held religious belief. Thus, anti-discrimination laws would be toothless.

            “Well the US will impose a state religion when the muslims become a majority and force Sharia Law”

            Given that over 70% of citizens of the US identify as Christian, what do you think the likelihood is that the majority of citizens in the US will one day be Muslim? Have you considered that one of the reasons Muslims immigrate to the US is that they belong to sects of Islam that DO NOT believe in using Sharia law as a basis for civil law? That they come here because of the freedom, liberty, and equality our Constitution offers?

            The two countries with the largest Muslim populations – Pakistan and Indonesia – are democracies and do not operate under Sharia law.

            “if they are unchecked”

            Given the protections provided by our Constitution that you cited, how exactly do you suggest that we “check” Muslims?

            “Since muslims is the only pseudo religion (political entity disguised as religion)”

            While you are certainly entitled to your view that Islam is only a “pseudo religion”, those who practice it would disagree.

            “that combines political and religious law under one state”

            The very first religion that was imposed upon the people was Christian when it was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire. People left England to form a new country because they did not want to live under the imposed laws of the Church of England. When the pilgrims first arrived in what would become the US, they imposed very strict laws based upon their views of Christianity. Do you recall the inquisitions and dark ages that occurred in the past? What were those based upon?

            Even in the history of the US, you have multiple examples of Christian beliefs between used to suppress the rights of citizens. Do you recall Blue Laws? The laws that stated that virtually no business owner was allowed to open on Sunday, as that was “the Lord’s Day”? I certainly remember that. Do you see how that was the State imposing upon the rights of citizens and business owners because of the Christian belief system? When Christian prayer was a mandatory requirement in public schools, was that not an example of religious belief being forced upon the citizenry? I also remember that on Friday’s when I was in school, the only choice we had for lunch was fish, because Catholics were only allowed to eat fish on Fridays. Do you remember when liquor stores were not allowed to open on Sunday? Do you see how that was imposing upon the rights of the liquor store owner? Even today, in some places, that is the case or liquor stores are forbidden from opening before a certain hour as people should be in church – not buying liquor.

            What was the main argument against allowing two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage – a right offered by the state? Religious belief. When interracial marriage was illegal, what was the main argument? Because some people stated that the Bible said that the races should not mix. Throughout the ages, religious belief – Christian and otherwise – has been used as a tool of the state to restrict the rights of citizens. Even today, there are those in the US who believe that our laws should be based upon the Christian belief system. To suggest that Islam is the only religion that has attempted to base civil laws on religious belief is simply historically inaccurate.

            “Gay people are human and to be treated with respect and love”

            Regarding same-gender marriage, please explain how it is either respectful or loving to deny two citizens of the same gender from accessing the CIVIL right of marriage and thus harming them in the process. Please explain how denying them that right based upon religious belief is not using religion as a basis for restricting the rights of citizens. Please explain to me how that action, with that rationale, is different from using Sharia Law to restrict the rights of citizens.

        • Guest

          No more than the Jewish deli that chooses to not offer pork because of religious conscience, that is there choice. If a business can’t offer wedding services to the public as the law requires, respecting the customer’s constitutional right to not share the seller’s beliefs, there are still other legal options: sell as a private club, sell as a non-profit or just not sell the product at all like the deli.

          Again religious conscience is no excuse to act without regards for the rights of others, the NY constitution has said that since 1777.

          We are just on the road to a more perfect union but you do t have to walk that road if you don’t want to.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            No more than the Jewish deli that chooses to not offer…

            You have some non-connecting ideas, but I understand the gist; and yes, Christians will have to re-think their business model to avoid such challenges.

            Again religious conscience is no excuse…

            How about the LGBT community that is served on a daily basis in these establishments without issue, but when they cross over to a moral compromising issue with Christians (marriage ceremony), they refuse to recognize THE Christian’s position.

            The Christian IS forced to compromise a clearly established moral boundary, but the LGBT community has no position for compromise for an institution that has NEVER been crossed until now?

            the NY constitution has said that since 1777

            And there has never been a problem until the progressives started attacking the moral framework. I’ve been actually hearing people say that morality is a non-existent idea. Go figure.

            on the road to a more perfect union

            Interesting, you said that. For me, I see the opposite happening. Not only in the United States, but the whole world. If you can’t see that, you’re living too close to the trees.

          • Guest

            Again civil rights laws are about <ufull enjoyment of all services. Your rationalization is no better than the hotel that would rent to a black person but tell them they can’t use the pool.

            The business can’t sell to customers regardless of their beliefs they shouldn’t be offering to the public. If there is a religious test the customer must pass to buy the service that is legally done as a private club or non-profit.

            Christian morality centers on love, all sin is by not loving either God, others or ourself. Morality with the current generation is more central to their lives than any other. Shoot you can barely get into a college without a history of community service.

            I see marriage, regardless of the ‘male or female’ no more a moral problem than wearing two fiber cloth, what religious holidays celebrated or what meats to eat. ‘This world issues’ that have little importance for those who walk in the next.

            Again fret if you like, but this is America and you need never marry anyone you think you shouldn’t but that is the extent of your religious freedom since everyone else’s shields them from yours.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Again civil rights laws are about…

            Not questioning civil rights in regards to racially motivated actions, but your analogy is not rationally equivalent. In a postmodern world, yes.

            The business can’t sell to customers

            It’s actually not a religious test. It’s an objective morality test. But again…I’m not arguing today’s standards of morality, which are superficially subjective. Plus, customers were only denied when the issue infringed on their religious beliefs.

            NOTE: These principles we’re talking about were not enforced against gay business that refused Christian client; not enforced against Muslim business that refused gay client. Only Christian…hmmm…

            Christian morality…

            Centers on God’s love. Now you have to determine what that actually means.

            I see marriage, regardless…

            Please, with all do respect, don’t start mixing Old Testament laws into your argument. I tend to find, most people have no clue what there talking about. And Levitical law, in relation to Christianity, is just a huge topic to be covering. Would love to, but it’s just not part of this current thread.

            Again fret if you like,…

            No frets! I understand, completely, what’s happening.

            that is the extent of your religious freedom…

            Which, according to my initial post, is getting more restrictive.

          • Guest

            And since in all these cases the defendants make it clear they are justifying their illegal acts by religion we don’t seem to be talking about the same things.

            And civil rights are all equally protected, business’s don’t get to pick and choose which ones they are going obey.

            And I used one Old Testament and 2 New, none of them are moral issues as isn’t marriage.

            And I know of no legitimate gay or Muslim business refusal. The fraudulent gay one asked for a product the business didn’t sell and the Muslim gag video was in a place where such discrimination is legal.
            If you know of a real case of illegal discrimination please let me know where it was.

            And sin isn’t about God’s love, that is perfect – it’s about failures in our capacity to love and refusing to sell offered services legally is an example of same.

            Honestly I think these business owners are the immoral ones and were properly fined for operating their business illegally.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            I would like to thank you for this brief dialog about the article above. However, I need to do some work on my servers. Have a relaxing and enjoyable weekend. Unless, you have other plans.

            Tchau…:-)

          • Guest

            No problem off to Puerto Vallarta for a week in the am.

            Hope your servers behave.

          • acontraryview

            “Not questioning civil rights in regards to racially motivated actions”

            Why not? If it a person’s sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix then, utilizing your argument, that person should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple, no?

            “It’s an objective morality test.”

            Whose?

            “NOTE: These principles we’re talking about were not enforced against gay business that refused Christian client; not enforced against Muslim business that refused gay client. Only Christian…hmmm…”

            Really? Do you have some examples?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Why not?

            This is a topic that would lead to a HUGE discussion about founding principles and original intent. I would rather avoid that, if you don’t mind.

            But I can try to provide a small example from The Declaration of Independence.

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

            Whose?

            Please! Read the very FIRST post in this thread and read it carefully. My position on matters and your position are based on two different world views.

            Really? Do you have some examples?

            If you’re really interested, you’d look for yourself.

          • acontraryview

            “I would rather avoid that”

            No doubt.

            “”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…””

            What does the DoI have to do with our laws? According to the DoI, women are not equal to men, and thus do not have the same inalienable rights as men. Is that what you believe?

            “My position on matters and your position are based on two different world views.”

            So are you suggesting that your views on morality should serve as a basis for our laws and that all citizens should be required to live according to them?

            “If you’re really interested, you’d look for yourself.”

            If you can’t back up your claim, then you can’t. No worries. I am certainly not going to spend any time researching what others claim to be true.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            No doubt.

            troll response

            What does the DoI

            ignorant troll response

            So are you suggesting that

            Original Intent!

            If you can’t back up your claim

            Lazy troll response

          • acontraryview

            “troll response”

            You may find it of value to get a better understanding of how a “troll” is defined regarding the internet. You seem to be misinformed about it. Agreeing with post is not “trolling”.

            “ignorant troll response”

            So you can’t explain how the DoI is used in determining our laws. Got it.

            “Original Intent!”

            So you believe that the original intent when drafting the Constitution was that your views on morality would serve as a basis for our laws?

            “Lazy troll response”

            Actually, since you are the one who is unwilling to provide backup for your claims, the “lazy” part certainly applies to you. Further, since your response was nothing but inflammatory, it would fit the definition of “troll”ing.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Been on this topic way too long, maybe we’ll have a chance to talk about this in more in the future.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Guest, your knee will bow one day to the Lord Jesus Christ and then he will judge you. Christians cannot mete the judgement but the Lord Christ will when He returns on His terms.

          • Guest

            Of course I will, we all will and I ask God often to forgive me my trespasses as I forgive others theirs. He told the Jews it was an abomination to run a business illegally.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Jesus meant – making sure their scales were balanced justly since often times they were rigged and not to change money in front of the temples so He stopped them from doing business in front of the temple. The situations today are different.

          • Guest

            Ah you know what God meant other than what He said? Oath breakers aren’t getting into heaven, dealing with customers falsely by deceiving them with false weights is an abomination, render taxes into a country ruled by a man claiming to be a god with coins bearing his name and a declaration of his divinity – God takes how His Children running businesses deal fairly with their customers very seriously.

            The situations aren’t different – either a Christian runs their business as the law requires or they don’t run it at all.

          • Bob Johnson

            Jews coming into Jerusalem for Passover had Greek and Roman coins. They need to convert to Jewish money because that was the only coinage you could use to buy your sacrificial lamb. Scales had nothing to do with it.

        • acontraryview

          “In the past, discrimination didn’t include marriage for same sex.”

          In the past, discrimination didn’t include interracial marriage. Did you have a point?

          “the same sex issue intimately contradicts the nature of the first amendment in regards to religion.”

          How so?

          “It’s obvious that laws are taking a more ominous direction in what constitutes morality.”

          Laws do not dictate morality. They dictate legality and they are based upon the Constitution.

          “My argument is that Christians should expect things to get worse.”

          What “things” are you referring to and in what way do you expect them to get worse.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            In the past, discrimination didn’t include interracial marriage.

            Not the same thing.

            How so?

            Research it. Requires a little thinking, though. Plus, look at my statement about the first amendment.

            Laws do not dictate morality.

            How are laws developed? What is the basis of a law?

            What “things” are you referring…

            Just have to open your eyes about what’s happening in the world.

          • acontraryview

            “Not the same thing.”

            How so?

            “Research it.”

            If you can’t back up your claim then you can’t. No worries.

            “How are laws developed? What is the basis of a law?”

            In the US, our laws are based upon ensuring the protections provided by the Constitution.

            “Just have to open your eyes about what’s happening in the world.”

            There are a lot of things happening in the world. Could you be more specific regarding what things are happening in the US and in what way do you expect them to get worse?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            How so?

            Now, I’m going to have to ask what grade you’re in, or if you have a problem with rationality.

            The “troll” meter is starting to increase with some of your posts.

            In the US, our laws are based upon ensuring the protections provided by the Constitution.

            Still didn’t answer the question. HOW??? You’re skirting the question. How do you ensure the protections? What determines a protection?

            Come on! You know what I’m asking for.

            There are a lot of things

            troll meter again…..

          • acontraryview

            “Now, I’m going to have to ask what grade you’re in, or if you have a problem with rationality.”

            If you can’t explain your claim then you can’t. No worries.

            “HOW???”

            Laws are developed either by a vote of the people or their elected representatives.

            “How do you ensure the protections?”

            Through the law.

            “What determines a protection?”

            The Constitution.

            “troll meter again…..”

            How is it trolling to state that there are a lot of things going on in the world? And you’re “skirting the question”, to use your term. So I’ll ask again: Could you be more specific regarding what things are happening in the US and in what way do you expect them to get worse?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            If you can’t explain your

            It’s like having a conversation with a child. :-/

            Laws are developed…

            By what conscience behavior? They have to be written down first by a process of thinking. HOW???

            How is it trolling to state

            Because unless you live under a rock, it’s quite obvious. Just do a search on the most persecuted group in the world.

          • gizmo23

            When stuck in an arguement call people names. Good plan

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Obviously obtainable information deserves a “troll” stamp.

          • Guest

            I think you spend too much time with your servers if you don’t recognize your clumsy attempts at trying to get your opponents to say things you can then claim as your own isn’t ‘trollish’.

            Come out with it, you want someone to say that law comes from ‘morals’ which are just a bit of inertia, a bit of ‘we always did it that way before’ and a smidge of ethics. US law is based on its Constitution which is ethics based and historically derived from the best of Roman and Greek culture as was the mindset of the Enlightenment philosophers and scholars.

            Of to PV!

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Come out with it,

            Exactly! And yes! The framework of the country was built off of some Roman principles, however, the morals–as proven by historical and social development–was FOUNDED on Judeo-Christian principles. There are far too many examples of a historical nature to dispute that.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Great points Steven – falling on deaf ears.

          • Guest

            Universal religious freedom? Democracy? Freedom of speech? Sorry, those are not judeoChristan traditions but sprang from the Enlightenment philosophical revolution of the 17 and 18th centuries.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Steven, spot on.

          • acontraryview

            “It’s like having a conversation with a child. :-/”

            Well I can’t argue there. Children are prone to make statements they can’t back up. But don’t be too hard on yourself.

            “By what conscience behavior? They have to be written down first by a process of thinking.”

            You answered your own question.

            “HOW???”

            How does thinking occur? Is that what you are asking?

            “Because unless you live under a rock, it’s quite obvious.”

            Well if it’s “quite obvious” then it should be easy for you to provide backup for your claim, shouldn’t it?

            “the most persecuted group in the world.”

            Our discussion revolves around your claims about something happening in the US. So i’ll ask yet again: Could you be more specific regarding what things are happening in the US and in what way do you expect them to get worse?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Been on this thread too long. Maybe in the future we can talk about these issues again. Thanks

          • acontraryview

            Perhaps so. If we do, I hope that you will limit your claims to ones you are willing and able to back up and that you will refrain from name-calling.

            Be well.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            American is changing. I see Americans and foreigners trampling the US flag, not wishing to recite the pledge of allegiance, taking the pledge of allegiance out of schools, spending more money on foreigners, refugees, illegal immigrants than the health of veterans, re-writing history by knocking down former president’s statues (I.E. Wilson), or statues from historical Americans, removing prayer from schools yet permitting moslem prayer rooms in public schools, permission to wear berkas (complete black covering head to toe concealing all identification) in auto license photos posing public safety concerns and not following the laws of the states which other citizens are following. Muslims removing pork from public schools. NO GO zones and sharia laws instituted on American soil: I.E. Lansing Michigan, Islamberg, NY (in Catskill mountains).Islamber also has gun shots and bombing sessions during the weekends which disturb the residents but they fear to complain lest they get retaliation from the muslims operating the jihadist type training there. Liberals attempting the institution of Sharia Law in the US which is not compatible with the constitution as islam is political entity or ideology that is autocratic, dictatorial, theocratic which is disguised as a religion, but suppresses many freedoms which the US protects under the constitution. The koran’s tenets permits the torture, killing, rape, enslavement of non-muslims, apostates, stripping of women’s rights, female genital mutilation, honor killings of children or parents if they are apostate in a country where the moslems are in control and have the majority population. Most muslims read and/or follow the koran word for word. Some muslims support jihadists financially or spiritually/emotionally. Few muslims condemn the violence of the jihadist or extremist muslims as just keep silent (possibly from fear or retaliation). Silence means agreement with the practice.

          • acontraryview

            I’m not sure where you are getting your information from, but you are drastically misinformed on a number of issues.

            What State laws are Muslims allowed to ignore that others are required to abide by?

            What “NO GO” zones exist in the US?

            Where has Sharia laws been implemented in the US?

            What “Liberals” are attempting the institution of Sharia law in the US?

            “The koran’s tenets permits the torture, killing, rape, enslavement of non-muslims, apostates, stripping of women’s rights”

            The Bible permits the killing of non-Christians, stoning of non-virgins, stoning of adulterers and the subjugation of women.

            The two countries with the largest Muslim majority populations are Pakistan and Indonesia. In neither of those are such actions permitted.

            “Most muslims read and/or follow the koran word for word.”

            No, they do not. Just as most Christians do not follow the Bible word for word.

            “(possibly from fear or retaliation). Silence means agreement with the practice.”

            Since you pointed out that some do not speak out from fear of retaliation, it is nonsensical to suggest that “silence means agreement”.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            If you watch the news, you will know what extremists muslims are doing.

          • acontraryview

            If you watch the news, you will know that extremist Christians are doing as well.

            I’ll ask again:

            What State laws are Muslims allowed to ignore that others are required to abide by?

            What “NO GO” zones exist in the US?

            Where has Sharia laws been implemented in the US?

            What “Liberals” are attempting the institution of Sharia law in the US?

          • Guest

            How what? How are they based on the Constitution? That question is the one that seems trollish – its like a mathematical proof, the Constitution is the beginning postulates of our government, and the laws are how we implement and insure these basic promises.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            The Constitution was constructed based on a set of standards as to what is deemed right and wrong for a society to grow (morality).

            How were these principles deduced?

            My answer would be moral predispositions based on Judeo-Christian principles. This would be a foundational factor, not the frame, the foundation.

          • Guest

            My answer would be the basic principles of pagan Roman and Anglo-Saxon law. Most of our constitutional principles spring directly from them.

            What are you attributing to Judeo-Christian?

          • Bob Johnson

            Yet, 7 of the 10 Commandments are not against the law.

          • Guest

            The basis of law is the Constitution. The Constitution was developed from the basic premises of the Enlightenment and philosophers. If you are trying to imply that a democratic republic arose from the religious principles of the day, that’s so obviously untrue its ‘trollish’ as you say to suggest it. Democracy is a pagan concept.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Too much historical data that proves your premise wrong. You can’t troll in your own thread. Pagan concepts are intertwined, yes, but the country developed with a foundation of Christian principles. Not perfect, but that was the core basis of moral direction.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            @ Guest, Which person on earth is perfect. We all make mistakes and learn by them. Atheists are not perfect either, no religious group is. The issue becomes who makes the least mistakes.

          • PARKS CURTIS

            A: Jesus

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Of course, only Jesus but He is God. I was talking about mortal people.

          • Guest

            No our legal principles are based on pagan Roman and Anglo-Saxon principles, that’s basic law.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            not true.

          • Guest

            Yes true, law school 101. Again, you have a law that wasn’t I’m all ears.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            The constitution will be scrapped soon. It does not appear the major players in the US gov adhere to its laws or do not wish to adhere to it.

          • Guest

            An opinion I don’t share.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      No one has ever been fined for hosting a home Bible study. There have, however, been people fined for zoning violations because their home Bible studies included too many people too often. In essence, for unilaterally changing a residential neighborhood into a public, commercial space.

      • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

        Yes! And recognizing the only information I am privy to is what I can find from the Internet, I vaguely remember in those zoning cases there were opposing arguments. And different points of contention as to the validity of the case.

        And seeing that today’s laws follow a more tyrannical nature, with governments producing restriction after restriction on people; I’m not confident that a lawyer, judge or politician have any clue as to what is morally and ethically right. The spirit of law has been traded for ill-gotten gains.

        Either way! Pay attention. The zoning issue is not my main argument. Stay on topic.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No, the manufactured outrage at nonexistent persecution I’d your main argument.

          So, we’re the cases settled, or not? Was it persecution or a zoning dispute?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            No, the manufactured outrage

            No…my argument is:
            1. the ruling is not surprising
            2. expect it to get worse

            So, we’re the cases settled

            Don’t remember. Try reading AND understanding what I posted in its entirety.

            nonexistent persecution

            Depends on what side of the fence you’re on and what you consider persecution.

            Would this couple have been dealing with this issue 20 years ago?
            What’s changed? Moral standards? Redefinition of some key phrases?

            Granted! It’s not like the persecution some Christians are facing in the Middle East, North Korea, The U.K. China, etc… but…it’s just getting started here. :-)

          • raytheist

            There is no general persecution of Christians because of their belief. If Christians are prosecuted (which is not persecution) it is because of their behavior, not their beliefs. When Christians misbehave, they will be treated like every other citizen to misbehaves, in accordance with the law.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            You really need to look at what you wrote and ponder the significance of the meaning.

          • raytheist

            Do you have a problem understanding the difference between persecution for beliefs and prosecution for behaviors?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Apparently so. Please explain it for me, so I have a clear understanding of what you’re talking about.

          • raytheist

            Fine….

            It is my firm and sincere belief that my crop will flourish and increase its yield only when I am faithful to perform the naked machete dance ritual at noon each day in the center of my corn field, in honor of the fertility gods. There is no law against this and my religiously required performance is protected under the First Amendment — both my belief AND the exercise of that belief.

            If I am called away for jury duty and must appear downtown, and the court adjourns for lunch so I am outside on the sidewalk at the noon hour, it is still my belief that I need to do this exercise of my faith. The law has an obligation and interest in protecting the safety of all citizens on the sidewalk, and this duty is greater than protecting my right to believe and act on my belief. I could be and definitely would be arrested and prosecuted for being naked on a public sidewalk and swinging 5-foot machete blades where people are trying to walk. The law doesn’t care WHY I was doing it, religious motivation or not; the law protects others who may be affected by my actions. Even if my beliefs don’t change, my behavior must change when I come into contact with the rights of others. Simply put, I can’t go around deliberately hurting others; my beliefs are not more important than the rights or safety of others.

            The Giffords are welcome to their beliefs, and can practice their beliefs in whatever way they wish. But by opening their property and turning it into a place of business open to the public, they must stop swinging their machetes around where they might (and would) hurt others. They voluntarily changed their property from just a private residence into a place of business. Their beliefs might not change, but their behavior must change for the protection of the public who have a right to expect them to provide what they’ve already offered. They cannot offer opposite sex weddings while refusing same-sex weddings. Under the law, a wedding is a wedding, and the Gifford’s personal religious belief against same-sex marriage is a machete they have to put away.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Interesting,
            But how do we determine what we can and can’t do in society? Where do we get these moral boundaries of infringing on other’s rights and how can be determine when it’s too much.

            You give the example of dancing naked…How about some of the LGBT events that happen within the streets of SF and other places? Are they appropriate for the public where little kids, that haven’t even reached puberty, can see; where the parents have no say in what’s appropriate in public view? What if law, someday, accepts that you can have a naked ritual dance at lunch? Does society draw the line. No objective morals exist?

            Are you going to tell me that’s morally acceptable?

          • Michael C

            It appears that you believe that our laws are based on what you call “objective morality” derived from the bible.

            I always thought our laws were based on our personal freedoms and rights as outlined in the Constitution.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            “It appears that you…”

            Does objective morality exist?

            “I always thought our laws were based…”

            The Constitution had to be based on some sense of what is right and wrong.

          • Michael C

            I wouldn’t argue for or against the notion that True Morality&#153 is objective. I’m truly uninterested.

            I’d probably disagree with the idea that the bible is the source of our laws.

            I’d happily concede that the Framers were probably influenced by a great many sources (including their religious faiths) when forming our country.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            I’d probably disagree with the idea that the bible…

            I would contend that Christianity is the only logical ideology that supports the history of the country and its growth.

            I’d happily concede that the Framers…

            Yet, historical reactionism only supports a Christian based consensus.

            What other ideology supports the freedoms and liberties, so sought after, by the founders?

            to say “a great many sources” only shows indecision and chaotic principles, which we see in this day an age. But historical records and practices establish a cohesive nature in belief which focused on the Christian religion.

            Again, I’m only talking about foundations, not the construction of the laws that followed.

          • Michael C

            If you would like to direct me to a resource that explains how our Constitution and it’s amendments are directly derived from the bible, I’d gladly take a look at it (as long as it’s not written by Barton or Lane).

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            You do understand you are establishing a logical fallacy argument, right?

            I said Christianity. To develop the idea of “Christian theological moral principles” would require an extensive amount of time to put on a simple message board. I could just say that if you truly study the Bible, you’ll find your answers. But non-believers and studying amounts to “I read.”

            Either way, historical documents establish clear ties to the founding principles of the country and Christianity.

          • Michael C

            I made no argument in my above comment.

            “…if you would like to direct me to a resource…”

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Constitution and it’s amendments are directly derived from the bible,

            That’s your fallacy.

          • Michael C

            Please rewrite my sentence to more accurately reflect the position that you are arguing.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Hey Michael,

            Thanks for your dialog, but I’ve spent too much time on this thread. I need to move on. Maybe in the future we can converse more on this subject. But for now, I need to do other things.

            Have a great weekend. :-)

          • singlemom_4

            Why not Barton or Lane?

          • acontraryview

            “What other ideology supports the freedoms and liberties, so sought after, by the founders?”

            Certainly not Christianity. The protections provided by the Constitution directly conflict with 7 of the 10 Commandments, so clearly the “freedoms and liberties, so sought after, by the founders” were not based upon the Bible.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Been on this topic too long, maybe I’ll answer a similar post in the future. Thanks for your input. :-)

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            The forefathers based much of the constitution on the Bible, as all were Christians to some degree, some Christian sect. What they did not want to do was force every American to believe in Christianity but the constitutional merits were based on most of the 10 Commandments. Dollar bill states “In God We Trust.” – quoted from the Bible. They were able to write that on the dollar bill since there were no atheists, nor satanists, nor agnostics, nor hindus, nor buddhists, nor muslims around at that time within the colonies to protest or complain to remove it from the dollar bill. Jews and Christians were comfortable with that statement on the dollar bill.

          • acontraryview

            “The forefathers based much of the constitution on the Bible”

            The original Constitution, prior to the first 10 amendments, set out the form that our government would take – 3 branches – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Please explain to me how “much of the Constitution” was based upon the Bible?

            With the addition of the first 10 amendments, the Constitution steered even further away from being Biblically based as the protections provided by the Constitution directly conflict with 7 of the 10 Commandments.

            “as all were Christians to some degree, some Christian sect.”

            How is that related to the actual content of the Constitution?

            “Dollar bill states “In God We Trust.””

            The phrase “In God We Trust” was added to coins in 1864 and to paper money in 1957 – long after the Constitution was adopted.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Most of the constitution derived its laws based on the belief in God and 10 Commandments found in the Old/New Testaments of the Judeo-Christian faith that helped build this nation. The dollar bill did not state “We do not trust in any god, but “In God We Trust.” If you do not like it, take if up with the founding fathers. They would have put you in your place, had you lived in their era.

          • Michael C

            What do the 10 Commandments have to do with our Constitution?

          • raytheist

            “How about some of the LGBT events that happen within the streets of SF and other places? Are they appropriate for the public where little kids, that haven’t even reached puberty, can see; where the parents have no say in what’s appropriate in public view?”

            Pride parades, leather festivals, or whatever — they have permits for those things, Even at those places, if there is full-on nudity or blatant sexual activity, it is (usually) shut down, the offenders are issued citations, and life goes on. holding hands, kissing in public, dancing together is not at all offensive when straights do it, so it is not at all offensive with gays do it at their gatherings, except in the minds of individuals who don’t like it. But merely “not liking” something is no reason to prevent others from doing their own thing. Nobody is actually harmed by merely “not liking” something. If you don’t like what goes on at pride festivals or whatever, you are free to not attend; nobody is forcing you to go there or take your children there.

            No, parents do NOT always get to decide what is acceptable in public. If they don’t want their children to see something, it is their job to shield their children; they don’t get to control what others do as if others are responsible for their children.

            And even if dancing naked at noon is permitted, I still couldn’t swing my machetes around, simply as a public safety issue.

            And, there really are no truly objective morals, no overarching moral law that all people are required to follow. ALL morality is both fluid and subjective.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Your view is equivalent to subjective society based morality. Mine, objective Christian based.

            My believe, and the doctrines that I study, tell me that society is only going to get worse and worse from MY perspective. Your apparent beliefs tell you that everything is fine and that culture determines what’s acceptable.

            Thus…my perspective will not change. Yours will.. Christians will become more ostracized and persecuted for their unchanging world view. My original and main point.

          • raytheist

            Your beliefs and morals, as a Christian, are just as fluid and subjective as mine, just slower to evolve. At one time Christians thought slavery, misogyny, and child abuse was okay. Christians still think it is okay to discriminate against others who believe or live differently. They even think it is perfectly okay to lie.

            Christians in the U.S. will not face persecution, such as Christians in other countries today are facing actual persecution. As long as we are a secular nation, you will be free to believe as you wish and live your life as you wish — but only up to the point where your beliefs do not cause you to behave in harm toward others.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Your beliefs and morals, as a Christian, are just as fluid and subjective as mine

            Yeah…I don’t think so.

            At one time Christians thought slavery, misogyny, and child abuse was okay

            If you’re arguing from uniformitarianism, which you are, you’re right.

            However, any rational person would understand that uniformitarianism is a faulty basis for historical arguments.

            They even think it is perfectly okay to lie.

            Umm…I don’t know ANY Christian that believes it’s okay to lie. At least, any that know the scriptures.

            Christians in the U.S. will not face persecution…

            We’ll see.

          • raytheist

            Christian missionaries regularly lie about their purposes for entering a country where proselytizing is forbidden; they’ll claim to be teachers or some other such “humanitarian” thing. They lie to their own children all the time, telling them that “You’re a sinner bound for hell unless you live right (i.e., OUR way).” — it is their core doctrine to lie about the nature of universe and humanity, claiming as ‘truth’ what is merely fantasy and myth. No child should be exposed to religion until they are of an age to critically examine its claim instead of taking them on faith just because their parents say so.

            Christians have been lying for years about the LGBT community, as well as lying about established scientific facts. Ken Ham is a great example of this.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Okay…I see your position and understand the claims you’re making. However, I honestly believe, if I continue down this road, it will EVOLVE into something requiring too much time.

            Thanks for your dialog though….

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            You have no right criticizing Christians, you criticize the Lord. Christians believe the way we do as we follow the Word of God which is mandatory to gain salvation. We only explain what is in the Word of God. If you do not like you it, you are free to ignore it and believe in what you wish. But we have a right to believe in the Old/New Testament and that Jesus Christ is God and the truth and only way to everlasting life. Christians do not have to listen to atheists or the lies of governments, nor do they have to listen to atheists commanding them how to raise their children and what to teach them in their homes.

          • raytheist

            I have every right to criticize Christians AND Christianity itself, in the same way you just criticized Muslim women for wanting to wear the burka for an I.D. photo. You DO have a right to believe whatever you want and nobody can tell you to believe something else, but everyone else has an equal right to examine and critique those beliefs when you express them out loud or try to impose them on others.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            which scientific facts? True Christians do not lie. God is truth and Christians seek God and Truth.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            False raytheist, true Christians never gave the green light for misogyny, child abuse, slavery. Read the Word of God – all of it to gain knowledge. Our beliefs never will cause physical harm to others. The Word of God is truth and only points to everlasting life, salvation, peace which the world nor any other religion offers. Christians do have a legal and spiritual right to self-defense to defend their children, families against perpetrators/thieves breaking into their homes or attacking them in public.

          • Cady555

            People who considered themselves true Christians did hold different opinions on moral issuess than we hold today. I don’t think anyone would say that hanging a 13 year old for theft is moral. Yet that used to be common and accepted.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Christians follow God’s laws. God is judging and has set the rules, not Christians. Christians love all we discriminate against the sins people are committing – there is a difference.

          • singlemom_4

            And a very point which is reflected in the Bible. Objective morality does not change because it’s biblically based and founded by God. Subjective morality is open to the opinions and views of the society that supports it, thus as society’s opinion and views change on what is right or wrong, so does subjective morality.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Okay, but I’m done responding to this thread. I’m moving on. But maybe in the future we can talk about a similar topic. Thanks

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Public display of affection is disgusting when heterosexuals do it – whatever, holding hands (unless you are on slippery ice to hold eachother up), kissing, romantic hugging. Heterosexual men and women can hug, shake hands of the same sex – but that’s OK as it is not romantic.

          • raytheist

            You might find it disgusting, and it is your right to find PDAs disgusting, but you can’t expect others to make you comfortable when they aren’t actually doing something wrong. Having sex on the sidewalk is not socially acceptable. Holding hands, or giving a simple kiss in greeting or parting, or even sharing a brief romantic kiss is completely acceptable in society today. If you don’t like it, look away or just mind your own business.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Coming in the near future, perhaps liberals will campaign to have sex in public places where children are, or incest marriage could be legalized in any fashion parent with child or siblings or marriage and/or sex with pets, necrophilia, polygamy, polyandry. Anyone can claim hormones drive them to this behavior.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Christians have rights to define their morals as written in the Word of God.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Good analogy. I respect your opinion even if I am a Christian. I have many family member and friends who are atheist. We agree to disagree and many atheistic have helped me, as I have helped them. Taking your point further, I.E. Berka’s on muslim women who totally wear black head to toe and their eyes have small slits with veils so they are totally unidentifiable – when taking auto license photos they refuse to take them off. What is the point then, since an officer for public safety cannot identify them in cases where they do a criminal activity. ID is required for safety and crime prevention or crime punishment reasons. They also refuse to take the same off during mug shots when they do a crime, yet they are forced to in those cases. But they cry racism and that they are not free to practice their religion. This is not fair to the rest of us law abiding citizens.

          • Cady555

            Exactly. “Face must be uncovered in official photos” is viewpoint neutral. As is “residential buildings cannot be used as businesses.”

            Anti discrimination laws are in place because society functions better when businesses do not discriminate. It doesn’t matter if the motivation for the discrimination is religious. Discrimination against those with disabilities is also prohibited but usually is not religion based.

          • Guest

            He meant their illegal behaviors – the only Christians who are being ‘persecuted’ in the US are ones that think the laws and rules that apply to others don’t apply to them.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Currently, laws are being developed through postmodern means–no standard of objectivity. If this is the case, then laws that are being developed are be created by what this generation believes is right and wrong (moral) the society. A person who holds to objective morality will find themselves in conflict with such progressive behavior.

            History has shown, that Christians tend to be on the receiving end of this persecution. So, when you say “law,” you say today’s law; tomorrow, maybe different.

          • acontraryview

            “Currently, laws are being developed through postmodern means–no standard of objectivity. ”

            Do you have some examples of laws that are being developed with “no standard of objectivity”?

            “A person who holds to objective morality”

            All morality is subjective.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Been here too long…moving on. See you in a possible future post. Thanks for your input.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Christians feel all morality comes from God’s Word Logos from the beginning of time also known as Old/New Testament, inspired by God that moved God’s anointed men to write them. God’s word will never pass away and as such it is truth and fact and not subjective, not to be criticized or evaluated my mortal men.

          • acontraryview

            “God’s word will never pass away and as such it is truth and fact and not subjective, not to be criticized or evaluated my mortal men.”

            The Bible is but one of many texts purporting to God’s true word, some of which predate the Bible by centuries. While I certain respect your choice of believing the Bible is the word of God, your choice is subjective, and thus your beliefs regarding morality are subjective.

            Choosing to believe something is true does not make it true. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            acontraryview – good point. God made it that way, for those who have faith to come to him. God calls His own. God can make all appear objective if He feels like it, and reveal His might with miracles and signs so all can see, but at this time chsoses not to until His appointed time comes. He wishes to see who are His faithful.

          • acontraryview

            I respect that you have chosen to believe that is true.

          • Guest

            I have desire to address paranoia or at argumentative appeals to the past. If you want to be afraid of change so be it, I’m not.

          • Cady555

            Yes. That is exactly what equality means. Equal treatment.

          • acontraryview

            “2. expect it to get worse”

            What “it” are you referring to, and it what way(s) do you expect “it” to get worse?

            “Would this couple have been dealing with this issue 20 years ago?”

            Clearly they wouldn’t, as there were not laws 20 years ago which made it illegal for a business that serves the public to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. Just as 60 years ago they would not have been dealing with the issue turning down an interracial couple.

            “What’s changed?”

            The law.

            “but…it’s just getting started here.”

            Given that none of those places provide the protections that our Constitution provides, why would you think that what is happening there would be likely to happen here?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            What is law based on?

          • acontraryview

            The Constitution.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            You know that’s not what I’m asking, troll.

          • acontraryview

            Your question was: What is law based on.

            In the US, law is based upon the Constitution. That is fact.

            What do you think serves as a basis for our laws?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            what is right and wrong (morality).

          • acontraryview

            Ahhh…..and what serves as the basis for determining what is “right and wrong (morality)”?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Been on this thread too long. I’m moving on. Maybe in the future we can revisit this idea. Thanks

          • gizmo23

            Jssus often called people trolls?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Actually, he used some stronger terms.

          • gizmo23

            Yes. But you are the one trying to set a Christian example. While stoop to someone elses level?

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            Because I’m not the false Hollywood representation of a weak back boned Christian. If you’re going to troll, I’m calling you out. Trolling becomes obvious after a couple of posts.

            If you want to continue a dialog in as respectful of a direction as possible, then I’ll provide the same in return.

            It’s not stooping, it’s calling things as they are. Plus, you can’t troll in your own feed.

          • gizmo23

            You come across as nasty not honest when you call namea

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            How a person “comes across” has nothing to do with his honesty or integrity.

            the problem is that everyone, these days, seems to abuse the Christian community. Why? I don’t see the same type of dialog with certain other groups.

            I’m not using bad language or being dishonest in my presentation of my position. I’m only calling out individuals that I think are being dishonest in their understanding of what’s being presented.

            Again! If you want to receive respectful dialog, give it. If you’re going to play games, I’m not going to be too concerned about calling you “troll.”

          • gizmo23

            You just don’t understand the example you are setting. Calling someone a troll is the same as calling them a curse word.
            If you can’t make your point without insulting or name calling, your point isn’t very good. The first rule of debate

          • Valri

            If you want to use the LGBT community as an example, I think it’s fair to say that they wouldn’t have the slightest interest in “abusing” the Christian community if you weren’t in their faces so much calling them perverts and denying them the right to marry and so on. If you left them alone I’m sure they wouldn’t feel the need to stand up to you.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            God has made the tenets, not the people. Christians follow God’s laws, not the laws of men.

          • Valri

            God said nothing about homosexuality. Neither did Jesus Christ.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Valri, you have not read the Bible. Read it first. You do not know who God is. You will when you meet the Lord Jesus Christ and your knee will bow to him whether you like it or not and after that comes the judgment. If you do not follow the Lord Jesus Christ and the Old/New Testament, God will judge you to everlasting death when those of us who believe on Lord Jesus Christ in our physical life times will enjoy everlasting life as a free gift for the asking and our belief.

          • Valri

            Stick to the point and spare me the proselytizing, Violet. God said nothing about homosexuality. And neither did Jesus Christ. When you try to research this for yourself, you’ll see that I HAVE read the Bible. Search all you like – Jesus is SILENT on the subject of homosexuality. Hell, it didn’t even make your top ten list – it’s not in the Ten Commandments, and some of you live your lives doing everything you can in your “loving” Christian way to keep homosexuals lonely and miserable in this life.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Valri, I do not proselytize. God does the proselytizing and conversion. I am doing what God calls me to do and I speak His truth from the Old/New Testament. If you can’t find it after reading the Old/New Testament, then I feel sorry for you, as no matter how many times Christians will give you references you will refute them anyway. You have a choice to accept it or reject it. So be it. It is no skin off my back, nor any Christian’s. It is immaterial to me if you belief it or not or whether you will be saved by the Lord or not, or how the Lord will judge you. It is fine with me if there are only a handful of saved humans in heaven as long as I am saved. It would be nice if the whole world repented and followed Christ and got saved. But that will never be the case, sadly. We who would be saved then would have higher positions, since we loved the Lord the most and He will reward us the most.

          • Bob Johnson

            We have read your references many times. I have read the Bible. I have read the works of scholars and translators (since I don’t read ancient Greek). In the end I must quote from the book/movie Princess Bride,”I do not think what word means what you think it means.”

          • PARKS CURTIS

            TO PROSELYTIZE CHRISTIANITY WILL SOON BE A FELONY LOL / I THINK JUST BY TELLING THE TRUTH YO DO … AS WELL AS HAVING A GOAL OF DECENCY … SINCERITY … ITS NOT EASILY FAKED TO A SCEPTIC LIKE ME LOL ( GEORGE BURNS REFERENCE QUOTE ) … GOD ACTUALLY TELLS US TO SHARE OUR FAITH … I THINK WORDS LIKE proselytize HAVE AN UNWARRANTED NEGATIVE CONNOTATION LIKE ” ZIONIST ” BECAUSE SO MANY ARE AGAINST THESE GOOD THINGS THEY USE THEMM SO OFTEN IN SENTENCES THAT MAKE THEM SEEM EVIL WHEN THEY ARE NOT . … A RECENT REVELATION TO ME IS THAT WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SPEAK OUR MINDS AND THAT ZIONISM IS REALLY JUST ABOUT SELF DEFENSE AGAINST HOMEINVASION … ANY WAY I APPRECIATE YOU AS A SISTER IN GOD THAT LISTENS ,,, IF WE proselytize THAT REALLY JUST MEANS WE PRESENT OUR CASE OF OUR UNDERSTANDING IN THE HOPES TO INFLUENCE OTHERS IN A P[OSITIVE WAY … THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AND IT DOESN’T HAVE TO INVO9LVE RAP[PING ON STRANGERS DOORS AT DINNER . FREQU8ENTLY I BREAK THE MONOTONY OF A CHECK OUT CLERKS LIFE PRESENTING A TRUTH OR ASKING A QUESTION . OUR WORLD IS USING EVERY TACTIC TO GET US TO STAND DOWN

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            We only state what God is stating that homosexuality is a sin and that people should stop engaging in sin if they wish to be saved. Some homosexuals have changed after hearing the Word of God, so no person should prevent anyone from hearing the Word of God. After they hear it and they refuse to change, so be it. God will judge them. Christians do not condemn gays – we have no right to pass spiritual sentences – only God does that on judgment day.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Steven, spot on. I feel it too as a Christian.

          • singlemom_4

            How can he teach you, if he himself is not able to demonstrate Christian kindness in getting his point across without insults. Good observation, Christianity, but rather how you converse with and treat others. Very good observation. No one is perfect all of the time or even most of the time, but as a Christian especially, we must remember to be respectful and civil.

          • gizmo23

            My thoughts exactly. It takes a bigger person to keep quiet or just walk away.

          • acontraryview

            I try to be very respectful in my replies to others, focus on getting to the heart of the matter, and having a dialogue that works through various view points. I see no point in devolving into personal attacks and insults. Such communication is, unfortunately, endemic in our society today and leads us away from solutions, rather than toward them.

            I don’t always succeed, but I certainly do try. Please know that I fully respect, and support, the right of each of us to hold to whatever beliefs we care to and to make decisions in our lives that are reflective of those beliefs. I also have great respect for the principles of our country – freedom, liberty, and equality – to be fully borne out in our laws. Sometimes that means that there will be things that will be legal that we don’t, individually, agree with. But I cannot make a case for securing my liberties while at the same time supporting the suppression of the liberty of others simply because I don’t agree with the way in which they express their liberty.

          • Cady555

            Well said.

          • acontraryview

            Thanks!

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Liberty to one may be oppression to another whatever country you are in, including the US. Gay have the rights to wed, but the caterers feel oppressed if they are forced by law to serve them.

          • acontraryview

            “but the caterers feel oppressed if they are forced by law to serve them.”

            I’m sorry that they may feel oppressed, but that is the law. If they don’t want to rent their facility to a couple of the same gender, then they should, as they did, choose to no longer host weddings. But they do not have the right to offer services and then pick and choose who they will offer them to using their religious beliefs as a basis. Just as a person who had a sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix is not allowed to turn away an interracial couple.

            Operating a business is a choice. What products and services the business offer is a choice. There is no “forcing”. No one is forced to operate a business. No one is forced to offer certain products and services. But for those who do, they are required to operate under the law.

          • singlemom_4

            Yes, the religious hypocrites of the day. But this person might not be saved and you shouldn’t refer to him as a troll. The apostles said to gently and patiently and with kindness teach those who oppose you.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            vipers, den of thieves but those are not name-callings – he described them for who they were.

          • Steven

            Exactly. And I was describing the individual posting for who he/she was. Someone actually said that the word “troll” is a bad word. :-/

            Just another revamp of linguistic dialog by the politically correct police. Like the creation or designation of terminology (i.e. homophobe, islamaphobe, hate, bigot, etc…).

            Yeah…I don’t follow those rules. I use the words that best describe the situation–within reason of course.

            TROLL: is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Jesus never called anyone names, least of all a troll, which is a myth. I remember ugly troll dolls as a kid. I never bought them.

          • Cady555

            If you believe this, you should be actively defending the Constitutional separation of church and state. It is the Constitution that protects individual religious liberty against government intrusion.

            It is the Constitution that prevents a person from saying “my religious beliefs are extra special, so I get to use government authority and power to promote my beliefs.”

            When a person acting with government authority is permitted to promote official prayers to a preferred diety, or tell school kids which religious belief is school approved, this makes legal dents in the wall. “Every kid gets to fully participate in public school activities without praying to the God preferred by the principal or teacher or coach” is not discrimination against Christians. It simply is not.

          • singlemom_4

            I believe it was a zoning dispute that allowed the law to fine, it would be the only legal way they could be fined. Is religious discrimination at the heart of it? Probably, but the government is aware of that, and they looked for a reason that would lend itself to a more legal validity, than religious discrimination. In other words, no one can be fined for having Bible studies in their home unless it violated some type of regulation (which none at this point in time exist), or their is a violation of a zoning law.

      • bowie1

        I wonder if they had held a euchre party regularly what the result would have been. P.S. We live on a street near a park where summer concerts are held so we have cars parked all along our streets. Does that mean the concert organizers should be charged with zoning offences?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I doubt your park amphitheater is zoned “Residential.” Do people live in it?

          As for what would happen if they were hosting a weekly euchre party, I have no idea. Why don’t you wait until something actually happens to get up in arms about it?

        • acontraryview

          So you think that the people holding the concerts go through the proper channels regarding permitting for those events?

        • Cady555

          The park is presumably zoned as a park.

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        Old/New Testament predicts Christians will be persecuted soon. It has not happened but will soon. If Christian churches will be closed or razed, the alternative will be to worship in homes until the gov shuts that down.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          How long is “soon?” When will you be forced to admit your paranoid persecution fantasies aren’t going to happen?

          • Bob Johnson

            Soon! It has only taken the rapture 2,000 years to sort of, maybe, almost, any day now arrive.

            Admit to paranoid? It is part of the definition for her religion.

          • D.M.S.

            It had no chance of happening until after
            May 14th 1948.

          • Valri

            Her post is very illuminating, actually. She wants to see Christians persecuted because then it fulfills scripture (according to her) and brings us a step closer to the rapture she no doubt is looking forward to.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Well if it is going the same as here, “soon” won’t be in the next 15 years.

    • acontraryview

      “There will come a day when the level of persecution will be such that the Christian will be locked up for the mere mention of being of the true faith. ”

      What events have led you to believe that such a draconian outcome is likely?

      “Currently we’re just seeing fines and jail for openly refusing governmental overreach”

      For example?

      “of constitutional boarders.”

      There are people living in the Constitution?

      • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

        What events have led you …

        You’re kidding me, right? Is your head buried in the sand or something? Do you really think that because this generation has seen the most technological advancements, we’ve actually escaped the barbarianism? Look what’s happening in the world on a daily basis. Mankind hasn’t changed in the sense of compassion.

        For example?

        Again! You’re kidding, right?

        • acontraryview

          “You’re kidding me, right?”

          No, I”m not kidding. I’d be most interested to know what events have happened in the US that would lead you to state that the inevitable conclusion will be that Christians “will be locked up for the mere mention of being of the true faith. ”

          “Again! You’re kidding, right?”

          No, I’m not kidding. What events have occurred that you believe are examples of “governmental overreach” and in what way are they “governmental overreach”?

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        HI acontraryview -re: your other post of list of states that discriminate on the basis of sexuality. Please list the states or email link or note a website. Thanks, Violet

        • acontraryview

          Here’s a link. Remove any spaces after pasting into a browser.

          http:// www. transsexuality. org/issues/resources/map-state-nondiscrimination-laws

    • gizmo23

      Keeping people fearful keeps the collection plate full

      • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

        Interesting proclamation. I would contend that people give in a church for a sense of works based salvation. Not so much the fear. You know? Doing there part.

        The ones that can tickle the ears the most, receive the most.

        • gizmo23

          I think most give sincerely, but that doesn’t stop some churches from using fear to motivate people to give up money.
          I’m really bothered by the fact that we always need a boogeyman to get people to act on their faith.

          • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

            No argument. Now, I’m assuming you don’t believe in God, so when you say “bogeyman,” Your referencing the idea of a deity. However, I would say that no matter the world view, people will always create a socially contrived bogeyman to get the people (sheep) to move in a certain direction.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            the boogeyman is real satan the devil who causes all the evil in the world or he gets his evil spirits to do it or puts the ideas in people’s heads. satan and those who follow him are doomed to destruction when Christ returns and the judgments begin. All people will bow their knew to Lord Christ one day.

          • gizmo23

            I have no fear of Satan, just as Jesus said we shouldn’t

          • Cady555

            Yes. The history of Christianity in America is one long progression of “common enemies”. The Massachusetts pilgrims outlawed every religion but their own, including other Christian denominations. The Temperance Movement united Christians against drink. McCarthyism united Christians against Communism. Now evangelicals are united against gays.

            I wonder what the next enemy will be.

          • gizmo23

            I still remember when men with long hair were all going to Hell and were destoying the American way and a peace sign meant you worshipped Satan

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            I.E. pilgirms at Salem Witch trials – rogue colony not true Christians. Temperance movement – tried to resolve drunkedness the best way they could. Today we have AA and clinics, medications, etc. Communism still on the rise. Evangelicals are not against gays, they are against homosexual acts as it is a sin.

          • Cady555

            It was still attempting to bring unity by finding a common enemy to preach against.

            And I love how you managed to work in the “no true christian” meme as a bonus.

    • lizk

      no, not surprised at all. A lot of people except witch craft and Allah being taught but not Jesus as His name if offensive to people. Jesus did say because the world knew Him not they hated Him just as His people will be hated. I believe we are living in the time of the end for everything is coming together.

  • Janice James

    THIS IS WHY WE NOW NEED MORE THAN EVER , A CHRISTIAN PRESIDENT, I AM VOTING FOR CARSON, AND IF HE CANNOT MAKE IT, THEN TRUMP IS MY SECOND CHOICE,,, THIS GOVT. SLAPPING PEOPLE AROUND MUST END. OUR BIBLE, THE ONE THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON, SAYS GOD IS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL’S PERIOD. GOD IS ALSO STILL IN CONTROL,,, WAITING FOR US IN AMERICA TO LISTEN TO HIM AND FOLLOW HIS WAY’S.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Obama is a Christian, but assuming he were not, what would you like him to do about state level public accommodation laws?

      • afchief

        0bama is a Christian? Are you for real??????

        1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

        December 2009-Present – The annual White House Christmas cards, rather than focusing on Christmas or faith, instead highlight things such as the family dogs. And the White House Christmas tree ornaments include figures such as Mao Tse-Tung and a drag queen. [1]

        June 2013 – The Obama Department of Justice defunds a Young Marines chapter in Louisiana because their oath mentioned God, and another youth program because it permits a voluntary student-led prayer. [2]

        February 2013 – The Obama Administration announces that the rights of religious conscience for individuals will not be protected under the Affordable Care Act. [3]

        January 2013 – Pastor Louie Giglio is pressured to remove himself from praying at the inauguration after it is discovered he once preached a sermon supporting the Biblical definition of marriage.[4]

        February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. [5]

        January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. [6]

        December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. [7]

        November 2011 – President Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. [8]

        November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. [9]

        August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. [10]

        April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. [11]

        February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. [12]

        January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. [13]

        November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. [14]

        October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. [15]

        May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. [16]

        April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. [17]

        April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. [18]

        February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. [19]

        April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” [20]

        2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:

        March 2015 – A decorated Navy chaplain was prohibited from fulfilling his duty of comforting the family (or any member of the unit) after the loss of a sailor because it was feared that he would say something about faith and God. He was even banned from the base on the day of the sailor’s memorial service. [21]

        March 2015 – A highly decorated Navy SEAL chaplain was relieved of duty for providing counseling that contained religious views on things such as faith, marriage, and sexuality.​ [22]

        June 2014 – Official U. S. government personnel, both civilian and military, in Bahrain (a small Arabic nation near Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran) must wear clothing that facilitates the religious observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.​ [23]

        March 2014 – ​Maxell Air Force Base suddenly bans Gideons from handing out Bibles to willing recruits, a practice that had been occurring for years previously. [24]

        December 2013 – A naval facility required that two nativity scenes — scenes depicting the event that caused Christmas to be declared a national federal holiday — be removed from the base dining hall and be confined to the base chapel, thus disallowing the open public acknowledgment of this national federal holiday. [25]

        December 2013 – An Air Force base that allowed various public displays ordered the removal of one simply because it contained religious content. [26]

        October 2013 – A counter-intelligence briefing at Fort Hood tells soldiers that evangelical Christians are a threat to Americans and that for a soldier to donate to such a group “was punishable under military regulations.” [27]

        October 2013 – Catholic priests hired to serve as military chaplains are prohibited from performing Mass services at base chapels during the government financial shutdown. When they offered to freely do Mass for soldiers, without regard to whether or not the chaplains were receiving pay, they are still denied permission to do so. [28]

        October 2013 – The Air Force Academy, in response to a complaint from Mikey Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation, makes “so help me God” optional in cadets’ honor oath. [29]

        August 2013 – A Department of Defense military training manual teaches soldiers that people who talk about “individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place” are “extremists.” It also lists the Founding Fathers — those “colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule” — as examples of those involved in “extremist ideologies and movements.” [30]

        August 2013 – A Senior Master Sergeant was removed from his position and reassigned because he told his openly lesbian squadron commander that she should not punish a staff sergeant who expressed his views in favor of traditional marriage. [31]

        August 2013 – The military does not provide heterosexual couples specific paid leave to travel to a state just for the purpose of being married, but it did extend these benefits to homosexual couples who want to marry, thus giving them preferential treatment not available to heterosexuals. [32]

        August 2013 – The Air Force, in the midst of having launched a series of attacks against those expressing traditional religious or moral views, invited a drag queen group to perform at a base. [33]

        July 2013 – When an Air Force sergeant with years of military service questioned a same-sex marriage ceremony performed at the Air Force Academy’s chapel, he received a letter of reprimand telling him that if he disagreed, he needed to get out of the military. His current six-year reenlistment was then reduced to only one-year, with the notification that he “be prepared to retire at the end of this year.” [34]

        July 2013 – An Air Force chaplain who posted a website article on the importance of faith and the origin of the phrase “There are no atheists in foxholes” was officially ordered to remove his post because some were offended by the use of that famous World War II phrase. [35]

        June 2013 – The U. S. Air Force, in consultation with the Pentagon, removed an inspirational painting that for years has been hanging at Mountain Home Air Force Base because its title was “Blessed Are The Peacemakers” — a phrase from Matthew 5:9 in the Bible. [36]

        June 2013 – The Obama administration “strongly objects” to a Defense Authorization amendment to protect the constitutionally-guaranteed religious rights of soldiers and chaplains, claiming that it would have an “adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.” [37]

        June 2013 – At a joint base in New Jersey, a video was made, based on a Super Bowl commercial, to honor First Sergeants. It stated: “On the eighth day, God looked down on His creation and said, ‘I need someone who will take care of the Airmen.’ So God created a First Sergeant.” Because the video mentioned the word “God,” the Air Force required that it be taken down. [38]

        June 2013 – An Army Master Sergeant is reprimanded, threatened with judicial action, and given a bad efficiency report, being told he was “no longer a team player,” because he voiced his support of traditional marriage at his own promotion party. [39]

        May 2013 – The Pentagon announces that “Air Force members are free to express their personal religious beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable. “Proselytizing (inducing someone to convert to one’s faith) goes over that line,” [40] affirming if a sharing of faith makes someone feel uncomfortable that it could be a court-marital offense [41] — the military equivalent of a civil felony.

        May 2013 – An Air Force officer was actually made to remove a personal Bible from his own desk because it “might” appear that he was condoning the particular religion to which he belonged. [42]

        April 2013 – Officials briefing U.S. Army soldiers placed “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” in a list that also included Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas as examples of “religious extremism.” [43]

        April 2013 – The U.S. Army directs troops to scratch off and paint over tiny Scripture verse references that for decades had been forged into weapon scopes. [44]

        April 2013 – The Air Force creates a “religious tolerance” policy but consults only a militant atheist group to do so — a group whose leader has described military personnel who are religious as ‘spiritual rapists’ and ‘human monsters’ [45] and who also says that soldiers who proselytize are guilty of treason and sedition and should be punished to hold back a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.” [46]

        January 2013 – President Obama announced his opposition to a provision in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act protecting the rights of conscience for military chaplains. [47]

        June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles. [48]

        May 2012 – The Obama administration opposed legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs. [49]

        April 2012 – A checklist for Air Force Inns will no longer include ensuring that a Bible is available in rooms for those who want to use them. [50]

        February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. [51]

        February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). [52]

        February 2012 – The Army ordered Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. [53]

        November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. [54]

        November 2011 – President Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. [55]

        November 2011 – Even while restricting and disapprobating Christian religious expressions, the Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans at the Air Force Academy. [56]

        September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. [57]

        September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” [58]

        August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except now, America). [59]

        June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. [60]

        January 2010 – Because of “concerns” raised by the Department of Defense, tiny Bible verse references that had appeared for decades on scopes and gunsights were removed. [61]

        3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:

        March 2014 – The Obama administration seeks funding for every type of sex-education — except that which reflects traditional moral values. [62]

        August 2013 – Non-profit charitable hospitals, especially faith-based ones, will face large fines or lose their tax-exempt status if they don’t comply with new strangling paperwork requirements related to giving free treatment to poor clients who do not have Obamacare insurance coverage. [63] Ironically, the first hospital in America was founded as a charitable institution in 1751 by Benjamin Franklin, and its logo was the Good Samaritan, with Luke 10:35 inscribed below him: “Take care of him, and I will repay thee,” being designed specifically to offer free medical care to the poor. [64] Benjamin Franklin’s hospital would likely be fined unless he placed more resources and funds into paperwork rather than helping the poor under the new faith-hostile policy of the Obama administration.

        August 2013 – USAID, a federal government agency, shut down a conference in South Korea the night before it was scheduled to take place because some of the presentations were not pro-abortion but instead presented information on abortion complications, including the problems of “preterm births, mental health issues, and maternal mortality” among women giving birth who had previous abortions. [65]

        June 2013 – The Obama Administration finalizes requirements that under the Obamacare insurance program, employers must make available abortion-causing drugs, regardless of the religious conscience objections of many employers and even despite the directive of several federal courts to protect the religious conscience of employers. [66]

        April 2013 – The United States Agency for Internal Development (USAID), an official foreign policy agency of the U.S. government, begins a program to train homosexual activists in various countries around the world to overturn traditional marriage and anti-sodomy laws, targeting first those countries with strong Catholic influences, including Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala. [67]

        December 2012 – Despite having campaigned to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, President Obama once again suspends the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 which requires the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the American Embassy there. [68]

        July 2012 – The Pentagon, for the first time, allows service members to wear their uniforms while marching in a parade – specifically, a gay pride parade in San Diego. [69]

        October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. [70]

        September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. [71]

        July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. [72]

        March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. [73]

        February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. [74]

        September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. [75]

        August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. [76]

        July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. [77]

        September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” [78]

        July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. [79]

        May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. [80] He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. [81]

        May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. [82]

        March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. [83]

        March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. [84]

        March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. [85]

        January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. [86]

        January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. [87]

        4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

        February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, [88] but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. [89]

        October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. [90]

        August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. [91]

        August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. [92]

        April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. [93]

        April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. [94]

        May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. [95]

        2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. [96]

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        O is a muslim masquerading as a Christian to garner the Christian vote under false pretenses. He was raised as a muslim in Indonesia which he admits. The church he may have attended in the US is not a true Christian church but an alleged Christian church – many gay hook ups going on in that particular church which the alleged church leader would hook up homosexual politicians with heterosexual women who would pose as “does.” He does not follow any Christian tenets.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      well said Janice James.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      I agree. Tell that to some of the other unbelieving bloggers on this thread.

      • PARKS CURTIS

        THE INTERESTING THING IS …. SETTING APART SPIRITUAL TRUTH WICH IS EVIDENCED BUT A MATTER OF FAITH …. PEOPLE STILL CANNOT EVEN JUST HONOR F A C T U A L TRUTH

  • Chrissy Vee

    Blessed be the name of Lord God Almighty, our avenger, and to the holy Lamb of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
    We are his children. These days will be like a vapor compared to eternity. These unjust victories will blow away like chaff in the wind.
    These stories do vex me. But, without repentance, these souls will be destroyed in the fires of Hell. That breaks my heart even more.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      I agree.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      Chrissy Vee – great comment!

      • Chrissy Vee

        Thank you Violet. God bless you sister. :)

  • BigHobbit

    IF you are going to sell stuff to the public, including the use of your property, you are engaging in commerce, NOT religious practice. You don’t get to pick and choose which laws to obey.
    If your religion disables you from lawful behavior in one industry, you have the perfect religious liberty to pick a different industry, one in which your beliefs and what is lawful coincide.

  • BigHobbit

    Equal rights and justice for all. Basic Golden Rule stuff. True American values. Even if your pastor thinks some are unworthy of human dignity.

    • lizk

      God loves the sinners but not the sin. Only by His power can a person change there is no other way.

      • BigHobbit

        If America were a theocracy, (and it was based on YOUR religion), you would have a valid legal point. As America is a pluralistic society where every one is legally equal, YOUR particular religious proscriptions only apply to YOU.

        • lizk

          God who created the heavens, the earth, and the seas and all that is them, knows the hearts and minds and the motivation on He is righteous no mam. Nothing can be hidden from God who sees everything. He is in control but evil has to come to a head. Only God created and only God sent His Son who willing laid down His life for our sins, who overcame the world, just like He gives us the power to overcome and by His righteousness can we enter heaven. It is something we can not pay our way in or earn our way in, it is not by our works,it is a free gift from God who ever accepts Jesus. That is how much He loves the sinner but not the sin.What He has to offer is way better than what the world offers.

  • BigHobbit

    There has not been a single case, at any level, where a business has successfully won the religious “right” to discriminate. You just don’t get to harm others because of your beliefs – discrimination is a harm, that’s why it is illegal.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      From a legal stand point you are correct. But how are gay couples harmed realistically when they have similar alternative options available. I’m sure there are gay businesses everywhere that would gladly accommodate them. If someone does not wish to serve me for any reason or no reason, I will find another place. I will not cause trouble on anyone to sue. If nobody in the world wants to serve me, then that would be a problem and I would have to sue but that would never happen – only hypothetical. I am sure gay people may be emotionally harmed that Christians read a Holy Book and preach in pulpits that the homosexual life style is a sin and leads to eternal damnation or everlasting death. How is it that they can tolerate that harm? Not being served a cake or event is even less emotional harm.

      • PARKS CURTIS

        SHE IS WRONG VIOLET PLEASE READ MY COMMENT WE ARE OBLIGATED BY OUR FAITH TO FOLLOW OUR FAITH … ITS REDICULIOUYSA … IF I DONT WANT TO DO GAY TATTOOS OUR MUSLIM RAPPER TATTOOS I DONT ” HAVE TO ” BUT MUSLIMS LAYING ALL OVER THE ROAD PRAYING IS FINE ? WHAT IF MUHAMMAD SAYS ” WHAT ABOUT ME ANDFD MY CHILD BRIDES AND MY OTHER 2 WIVES WHY ARE YOU ” DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US ” AND THE CONTROLLING LEFT SAYS ” YOU HAVE TO HIONOR THEM AND THERE RELIGION TOO ” … WE DO NOT . ITS ALL ABOUT XEREX ALL OVER AGAIN AND I ONLY BOW TO THE GOD OF ISRAEL !
        ◄ Esther 3:5 ►

        When Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor, he was enraged.

      • PARKS CURTIS

        HERTE IN LIES THE PROBLEM WITH THE LEFTS FALSE CLAIM ” WE SHOULD HONOR ALL BELIEF SYSTEMS ALL AT ONCE ” AS EMOTIONALL;Y SEDUCTIVE ” ALL IDEOLOGIES ARE WELCOME AND FREE TO PRACTICE ” … WELL … WHAT IS THE R E A L I T Y OF THAT ? HEADHUNTERS

        • BigHobbit

          Why do you hate American values of equality, freedom and fairness?

          You lack basic human empathy.

      • PARKS CURTIS

        WHERE I LIVE THE PRESSURE IS TREMENDOUS MANIPULATIVE GAY PEOPLE CRYING AND SCREAMING AND THROWING TANTRUMNS ” WHY DO YOU HATE US ” ETC … AND MY ANSWER IS ALWAYS THE SAME : I HAVE AY LEAST AS MUCH RIGHT TO CIVILLY DISAGREE , NOW STOP YOU WHINNING AND GO ATTACK SOME MUSLIMS THYAT WAMNT TO BEHEAD YOU FOR BEING GAY … THEN THEY GIVE ME SOME PREADOLESCENT LECTURE ABOUT TOLERANCE AS IF THEY DIDNT EVEN HEAR WHAT I JUST SAID … THEN I TELL THEM … ” YOU WABNR TOLERANCE FOR GAYS ? TEN BOYCOT ISLAM THAT DOESNT MERLY DISAGREES BUT THROWS SAME SEX COUPLES OFF ROOFS IN IRTAQ HANGS THEM ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST KILLS THEM IN ALL KINDS OF VILE WAYS AND SHOOTS THEM IN OUR OWN LAND RIGHT HER IN WASHINGTON .. ATTEMPTED MASS MURDER OF OVER 200 PEOPLE IN ” GAY DISCO SAME STATE ,,,, GO PROTEST THAT THEY ONLY GAVE MASS MURDER ATTEMPT MUSLIM 10 YEARTS ” … THGEN THEY DRIFT BACK TO HOW CHRISTIANS AND RELIGION ATY LARTGE ARE THE PROBLEM … THEN I KICK THEM OUT OF MY TATTOO SHOP FOR COMPARING JESUS TO A PEDOPHILE NAMED MUHAMMAD … THAT IS HOW YOU STICK UP FOR YOUR CONTSITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF SPEACH / PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION

        • BigHobbit

          The only person whining here, is you.

          (BTW, God gave you a caps lock key for a reason.)

        • Cady555

          Isn’t there something in the comment rules about all caps?

          Flagged for shouting.

          • PARKS CURTIS

            IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT CONTROLLING WHAT CASE OF LETTERS PEOPLE CHOOSE … AND CENSORING BASED ON SIMPLE CASE PREFERENCE VFOR EASIER READING YOU DEEM ” SHOUTING ” AND SEEK TO HAVE A VIEW OR FACT YOU DONT LIKE CENSORED … IS THERE EVEN SUCH THING AS A CAPITAL LETTERS FLAG ? THAT IS THE LOW STATE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WE HAVE AMOUNTED TO ? IT WOULD MAKE EQUALLY AS MUCH SENCE FOR ME TO INSIST YOU SHOULD BE CENSORED FOR NOT WRITTING IN LARGER LETTERS SINCE ELDERLY PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED IT FOR EASIER READING … NOTICE YOU ATTACK A NON ISSUE AS IF IT IS A SIN TO TYPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS FOR EASIER READING AND FAIL TO ADRESS THE ISSUE THAT CHRISTIANS ARE BEING PUT IN CAGES FOR SIMPLY FOLLOWING THERE RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE WHICH HURTS NO ONE , AT THE HEART OF YOUR LEFTISM IS TO CONTRIVE A FALSE NARRATIVE : THAT EXERCISING FREDOM OF IST AMENDMENT IS SOMEHOW ” WRONG ” THAT HAVING A CHRISTIAN VIEW YOU FOLLOW IS ” BIGOTED ” THAT LETTERS HAVE VLUME … ETC … YOU SEEK TO STOMP OUT OUR FREEDOM WAY OF LIFE AND FOLLOW TYRANNICAL PRINCIPALS THAT EVEN THOUGH WHAT YOU ARE INSISTING ON IS BASED ON A DISHONEST NARRATIVE YOU WILL INSIST ON YOUR WAY / THROW A TANTRUMN AND INSIST ALL OP[POSING IT ” MUST BE CENSORED ” IF THERE IS A ” RULE ” ABOUT NOT USING CONSECUTIVE CAPITAL LETTERS THAT IS A RIDICULOUS VIOLATION OF SIMPLE CASE CHOICE THAT IS PLAINLY EASIER TO READ AND BECOMES AN EXCUSE FOR CONTROL FREEKS AND THOSE OF OPPOSING VEIWS TO CENSOR … THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH WEATHER YOPU LIKE SOMEONE TYPING IN EASIER TO READ LETTERS OR NOT … WATCH : truth … TRUTH … THE TRUTH IS STILL THE TRUTH WEATHER IN LARGER EASIER TO READ LETTERS OR SMALL …. TO BUROCRATICALLY BLOCK POINTS OF MERIT ON A ” RULE ” THAT IS BASED ON A FALSE NARRATIVE THAT LETTERS HAVE VOLUME IS REDICICIOUS AND AN ENDLESS DIVERSION AND DEVISE TO CENSORSHIP . INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE RRAL ISSUE YOU ONLY FIXATE ON THAT YOU DONT FEEL PEOPLEW SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IF THEY CHOOSE … A WHOLE 2 CHOICES IS TOO MANNY OPTIONS ? PEOPLE IN THERE 70’S 80’S AND 90’S HAVE VRTEQUESTED IT AND 1 EVEN TOLD ME SPECIFICALLY THEY WERE ” BULLIED BY OTHERS SAYING IT WAS SHOUTING ” IT IS A MICROCOSM OF THE COURTS FALSELY INTERPRETING THINGS THEN EXPECTING WE SHOULD ALL GO ALONG WITH THERE NARRATIVE THAT IS AGAINST OUR FREEDOMS . YOU ARE MORE CONCENED WITH LIMITING FREEDOMS THEEN PROTECTING THEM … I BET YOU VOTED FOR OBAMA TWICE DIDNT YOU ? ( SERIOUSLY ASKING )

          • Ambulance Chaser

            This guy makes afchief look like a Harvard Law professor.

      • BigHobbit

        How were the blacks harmed by segregation?

        • Violet Vanderhelm

          Blacks were not harmed physically but emotionally. Separate but equal is an oxymoron for morons. If someone is equal then why should they go separately. If I was born in that era I would advocate for total assimilation of the races. God loves all races, He created them. Inter-racial marriage is great. But homosexuality is a sin. At times throughout the US history, minorities of all kinds, even if equal, tended to segregate themselves through default, hence the formation of ghettos, which became exclusionary to the majorities.

          • BigHobbit

            “But homosexuality is a sin.”
            Sin is a religious idea. We don’t decide who is entitled to equality base on what SOME folks say is “sinful”. This is America – you don’t get to decide that others are not worthy of equality because of your personal idea of what is “Sin.”
            The first amendment protects MY religious beliefs from being infringed by YOUR religious beliefs. You say “homosexuality is a sin.” I say being a homosexual is NOT a sin.
            There is no objective, independent, scientific, logical way of determining who is right.

      • acontraryview

        “But how are gay couples harmed realistically when they have similar alternative options available.”

        Having other options available isn’t the point, nor is it always the case. How are blacks harmed if they are turned away from an establishment if they have other options available? How about disabled people? Or women? Or Jews?

        “If someone does not wish to serve me for any reason or no reason, I will find another place. I will not cause trouble on anyone to sue.”

        That is certainly your choice. Others, however, belief that businesses should be held accountable to the law.

        “I am sure gay people may be emotionally harmed that Christians read a Holy Book and preach in pulpits that the homosexual life style is a sin and leads to eternal damnation or everlasting death.”

        Some might be, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Churches are not businesses of public accommodation.

        “How is it that they can tolerate that harm?”

        They have no choice. Just as non-Christians have no choice but to tolerate that preachers say that non-christians are going to be subject to eternal damnation. Should they then also deal with being turned away from a business because of their religious beliefs?

        As a society, we have decided that businesses that serve the public should not be allowed to discriminate in the provision of their services based on several criteria. In some places, that criteria also includes sexuality. In other places in the country, it does not, and business owners are free to turn away gay customers with no legal ramifications at all.

        • Violet Vanderhelm

          ” In other places in the country, it does not, and business owners are free to turn away gay customers with no legal ramifications at all.” acontraryview Where are these other places in the country and what types of businesses?

          • acontraryview

            “Where are these other places in the country”

            Only 22 states provide protections against discrimination based on sexuality. The rest do not. in some of the states that do not (for instance, Florida, where I live) certain cities/counties have laws which prohibit discrimination in public accommodation, but they are not state-wide laws. If you would like a list of the states where it is not illegal to discriminate against gay people, I’d be happy to provide it.

            “what types of businesses?”

            Any business that is open to the public.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Christians have no problems serving blacks, disabled people, or women. It is not a sin to be black, disabled, or a woman, It is a sin to partake in homosexual activity.

          • acontraryview

            While that may be your view, Violet, not all people who identify as Christians share your views. There are Christians who believe that interracial marriage is a sin. Clearly it is a sin to not accept Jesus as your savior, which only Christians do, so then it would be a sin to participate in events that involve non-Christians, would it not? Do you think the owners of this venue were asking couples if either had been divorced for reasons other than adultery, and then refusing to host the wedding if either had been?

            “It is a sin to partake in homosexual activity.”

            The Bible states that it is a sin to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender. Since renting a facility for a same-gender marriage does involve the owners of the facility having sexual relations with someone of the same gender, please explain how doing so would be a sin.

            My question did not have to do with who Christians are will to serve and who they are not. The question dealt with anti-discrimination laws in general. So I’ll ask again, regarding anti-discrimination laws: How are blacks harmed if they are turned away from an establishment if they have other options available? How about disabled people? Or women? Or Jews?

          • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

            Well stated. There is no right to be homosexual, it is a deviant behavior, religiously or naturally.

          • Guest

            Actually in NY state there is indeed a civil right to be any sexual orientation you want.

          • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

            So, it is still deviant, like paephilia.

          • Guest

            Your opinion is noted but that has nothing do with the law or this case.

          • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

            Yes it does. The law means feces when it is a violation of the natural law.

          • Guest

            Oh you aren’t using the term ‘Natural Law™’ like that silly Catholic dogma rationalization? No no I’m only interested in real natural law as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

            Natural law is what supports marriage equality. As we know from fetal neurological development and resultant sexual dimorphism of the central nervous system it would be a miracle if their weren’t People of both sexes attracted to either sex.

            That there are people attracted to their own gender is natural and expectable and the reason people can license the 100% secular civil contract of marriage regardless of their sex.

          • acontraryview

            “There is no right to be homosexual”

            You are mistaken.

          • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

            Actually, no, I am not. Deviance is not a right, whether religiously or evolutionary. Homosexuality is deviance.

          • acontraryview

            If you believe you are correct, please cite where the Constitution being deviant would not be allowed in regards to sexuality.

            Oh, and while you are at it, perhaps you could provide your rationale for why all the judicial rulings that are contrary to your view are not valid.

          • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

            Because I hold a contrary view, and court decisions can in fact, be wrong.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite where the Constitution states that being “deviant” would not be allowed in regards to sexuality. Got it. Thanks.

            So you can’t provide your rationale for why all the judicial rulings that are contrary to your view are not valid. Got it. Thanks.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            Furthermore, sexual preference isnt a choice. Hunting down a farm named LIBERTY solely to punish them for faith, IS a choice, though and law should not hear such a$$ery.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          why aren’t you attacking Imams for preaching hate and refusing to do gay marriages ? MORE importantly why is the big issue how terrible it is for Christians to simply follow there religion when islam throws them off roofs hangs and even shoots ” gays ” in our own land while condoning having sex with prepubescent children and animals … Why is baking a ” GAY CAKE ” the biggest priority in the universe while we are sweeping pedophilia under the carpet and child rape is a global crisis ? People are having emotional meltdowns over not being able to have strippers in pink g strings hoping out of ” gay cakes ” but say nothing of greatest human trafficking / rape / sale and abduction of U S CHILDREN in the ETIORE HISTORY OF AMERICA a bust that extended to several states and 29 somalian muslims doing the same damn ( used in true context ) things as Muhammad did .≥. … How did this become the ” priority ” to ” combat the non baking of gay wedding cakes ” which is actually protected under ” freedom of religion ” in our very first Amendment yet you over look headhunter pedophile liar “prophet “followers raping kidnapping and selling our children ” religiously ” in a non peaceful assembly cult .. … its like Pedophile enabling Killery Clinton saying she will “bring to justice ” an out spoken coptic christian film maker practicing his 1st amendment right … but not going after the terrorist who killed our American defenders … you place non issues over real issues and in your false focus also sweep the greatest priorities of all under the carpet Quran (26:165-166) – “Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, “And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing”

          • Guest

            The first amendment is what protects the customers – they have a constitutional right to NOT share the beliefs of the business owners, and the NY state constituion says that liberty of conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others.

            As to your red herrings unrelated to this thread let it just be said that just because there are other problems in the world doesn’t mean this one isn’t eorth addressing.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            Customers do, but so do property owners have the right to, yknow, own their actual property.

          • Guest

            No one is making the business owner offer wedding services, but if they choose to do so the customer has a right know they will do so legally which means full access to all services regardless of their religion, sexes, or sexual orientation.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            They are offering wedding services and that is their capital, economically speaking. The constitution mandates people cannot be forced to enter or exit the market.

          • Guest

            Not at all, they are operating just fine not offering wedding services since this issue came up.

            Theirs is the need to religiously discriminate, it’s up to them to do so legally and if they make less money because of their ‘conscience’ that’s their choice.

            And expecting someone to run a business legally is no more force than requiring a customer to pay for their services.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            when the government intervenes on personal religious belief, we no longer follow the constitution. there is no pick and choose.

          • Guest

            The government isn’t intervening, as Justice Scalia once said “people have a right to religious conscience, not a right to any particular job.”

            If someone’s religion won’t let them follow the law in running a particular business then they need to run a different kind of business. An Amish person doesn’t have a ‘right’ to run an air traffic controller that refuses to use radar screen with the excuse of religious conscience, a business doesn’t have a right to sell wedding services only to those of certain beliefs, certain sexes or sexual orientations contrary to the law for the same reason.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            if the government isn’t interfering, are you saying the h0m0s never went to court, ergo we are talking about something that never happened? gee, i thought bernie sanders lacked intelligence at a minimum tier.

          • Guest

            No, obeying the law isn’t ‘government interference’ to anyone but an anarchist. The business broke the law, everything that followed from that is the lawbreaker’s fault.

            Since 1777 the New York state constitution has said that liberty of conscience isn’t an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others, in this case the customer’s civil rights – right to have a belief that allows same sex weddings, right to be any darn gender they want, right to any sexual orientation, and still take business up on any public offer and be secure that they won’t be rejected because of their beliefs, gender or sexual orientation.

            Sounds like you are just one of the sour grapes guys who thinks they don’t have to obey constitutional principles and the laws that follow from them because they don’t want to. Sorry, this business broke the law – they are the cause of any ‘government interference’ just like a murderer is.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            Not anarchism. Laissez faire like our founding fathers intended.

          • Guest

            Too bad they neglected to put that in the constitution then. We know that wasn’t the intent of the founding fathers of the state of New York, they said liberty of conscience wasn’t an excuse to act without regard for the law or rights of others since 1777.

            As I’ve suspected, you just want the result you want regardless of the facts, the law or actual history.

            Good luck with that.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            The laws state no discrimination of equal people may be made. It didnt say you had to serve people you want exited from your premise. You must hire them but refusing service is a standard part of life.

            As for breaking the law, the question remains as to whether law was broken, as that makes or breaks applicability.

            Gays arent a class, and its never been decided officially if choice or uncontrolled. Ergo, officially, while discrimination exists, it isnt always legally applicable, not to mention discrimination has base in the 14th amendment which makes no reference to gays, and has roots in hateful discrimination, not nonpersonal discrimination.

          • Guest

            Word salad. The business knows how it deals with people regarding civil rights is regulated, and they know how it is regulated. Same reason employees are protected in hiring applies to the customers.

            And there is no question – civil rights laws have been affirmed as constitutional in all levels of government. This is just a business that wants to establish a ‘right’ to religious discrimination against customers – been unconstitutional in New York since 1777.

            And you haven’t a clue about this case – the business owners fell all over themselves saying this WASN’T sexual orientation discrimination – they are trying to establish a right to religious discrimination, i.e. that they can refuse a customer because their beliefs aren’t held by the business owners.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            Is it any better that there are these h0m0 activists who single out christian owned bizzes for the purpose of litigation?

          • Guest

            ha! A Christian-owned business wouldn’t be operating illegally. If they offer something for sale they would sell it as the law requires or not offer it for sale at all.

          • Bob Johnson

            Preachers and Imams are free to discriminate all they want. No one is planning to put them in a cage or force them to perform rites against their faith.

            However, business people who choice business which fall under the “public accommodation” rules must follow the laws of their state.

          • acontraryview

            “The 1st Amendment is our Law”

            Actually, the 1st Amendment is an article in the Constitution upon which laws are based. In and of itself, it is not a law.

            “So you are in favor of putting preachers in cages for following there conscience .”

            Please cite what I said that would lead you to that conclusion.

            “why aren’t you attacking Imams for preaching hate”

            I would speak out against any person who preaches hate. Would you not? Do you support people who preach hate?

            “and refusing to do gay marriages ?”

            I think houses of worship should be free to conduct, or not conduct, any marriage ceremony they care to. As they are.

            “Why is baking a ” GAY CAKE ” the biggest priority in the universe”

            To me, it isn’t. Is it to you?

            “” combat the non baking of gay wedding cakes ” which is actually protected under ” freedom of religion ” in our very first Amendment”

            First, there is no such thing as a “gay wedding cake”. There are just wedding cakes. Second, no, refusing to provide a service in contravention of anti-discrimination laws is not a protection provided under the 1st Amendment.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            It isnt case law or statutory law but it is Constitutional law, such as is the case through amendments to the constitution past the first 10 and had to be ratified in the first place. In effect, it is uberlaw governing regularLaw. But uberlaw is still law.

          • acontraryview

            “Constitutional law is the body of law which defines the relationship of different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.”

            The 1st Amendment is not law. The Constitutionality of laws are ruled upon based upon judicial interpretations of the protections provided by the 1st amendment.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            It is a legal amendment to a document of constitutional laws governing other laws. It is a legal rule, and that is the definition of law, denotatively speaking.

          • acontraryview

            While the Constitution is denoted as the “law of the land”, my comments were dealing with the actual legal codes of the US, of which the Constitution is not a part.

          • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

            it is a start, just as pre-school is the start of school. it is called pre-school, and this would constitute pre-legislative law. and you never stated you meant legislative law or case law, so it isnt my fault we are arguing, here.

          • acontraryview

            “and you never stated you meant legislative law or case law”

            I thought that would have been self-evident, but apparently not. My apologies for not being more specific.

            “so it isnt my fault we are arguing, here.”

            You may be arguing. I am discussing.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          SHOULD THE JEWS BE FORCED TO CATER NAZI AWARDS CEREMONY… YOU SAY THAT THE POINT “isn’t the point” … IF THE SUPREME court says muhammad may now marry 4 wives and child brides in our land because its ” discrimination ” if we domino participate .,… DOES that really change 1 word of our constitution and its intension that we may follow our peaceful assembly convictions ?

        • PARKS CURTIS

          SO… YOUR ULTIMATE POINT IS THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD ” SHUT UP ” YOU THINK THAT STAING CRISTIAN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IS EQUIVALENT TO ” RACISM ” SO YOU FAL;SELY SAY THIS COMPARISON OF RACISM THAT DOENT EXIST AS JES9US SAID ” WHOSOEVER ” MEANING ALL RACES AND IS SPECICI ABOUT ” GENTILES ” … WHERE AS MUHAMMAD CALL;ED BLACKS RASIN HEADS … SO DO YOU THINK THE MOSQUES SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN FOR TEACHING RACISM AND SLAVERY ? NO YOU ONLY ATTACK CHRISTIANS BASED ON FALSE RACIST ACCUSATION BUT YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM W/ MUSLIMS WHOSE VERY CENTRAL BELIEF IS RACISM … SO YOPU ASK ” WELL THENN WHY ARE SO MANY BLACKS FOLLOWING A RACIST PROPHET WHO ENSLAVED AND HATED BLACKS ” ? SAME REASON YOU SAY HAVING BELIEFS ABOPUT SEXUAL CONDICT IS THE Same as ” racism ” A: IGNORANCE … AND USEFULNESS TO THE FORCES THAT ARE DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY : ATHIST MARXISM IFLUECED LEFTISM AND ISLAM WHICH IS ALSO OF THE LEFT ./ INFACT RACISM ITSELF IS LEFTIST

          • acontraryview

            “SO… YOUR ULTIMATE POINT IS THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD ” SHUT UP “”

            Please cite what I said that would lead you to that conclusion.

            “YOU THINK THAT STAING CRISTIAN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IS EQUIVALENT TO ” RACISM “”

            Please cite what I said that would lead you to that conclusion.

            “NO YOU ONLY ATTACK CHRISTIANS BASED ON FALSE RACIST ACCUSATION”

            Please cite where I ever said that Christians, as a group, are racist.

            “YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM W/ MUSLIMS WHOSE VERY CENTRAL BELIEF IS RACISM”

            Please cite where Islam states that one of its central beliefs is racism.

            “YOU SAY HAVING BELIEFS ABOPUT SEXUAL CONDICT IS THE Same as ” racism “”

            Please cite where I said that having beliefs about sexual conduct is the same as racism.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          YOU ARE PRETENDING PARTICIPATING IN THINGS IDEOLOGICALLY AGAINST YOUR VALUES IS THE SAME AS DISCRIMINATING ON RACE … YOU ARE SAYING THAT VIOLET IS COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES AS YOU DO THIS IN THE MOST EXTREME WAY OF SAING THAT SUPERFICIAL THING IS THE SAME AS INWARD BELIEFS … NO SKIN CLOR IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO SEXUAL CONDUCT

          • Bob Johnson

            According to state law in many states, skin color is equivalent to sexual orientation. (Civil Rights Laws)

            Sexual conduct laws are different – lewd conduct is usually against the law regardless of who is involved.

          • PARKS CURTIS

            THE FACT REMAIN S FALSELY EQUATING ENGAGING IN AN IDEOLOGICAL CEREMONY YOU OPPOSE IS NOT EQUAL TO RACISM BUT IS IN FACT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREEDOM OF RELIGION TO CHOOSE YOUR LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT BASED ON THE TEACHINGS OF YOUR RELIGIOS CONVICTIONS … I BET YOU GUYS DONT STAND OUT INFRONT OF MOSQUES AND PROTEST THE RACISM / SLAVER AND PERSECUTION OF HOMOSEXUALS JUST HARRASS CHRISTIANS RIGHT ?

          • Bob Johnson

            The only church I stand in front of is the one I attend. I’m usually talking to the priest. Usually I learn something, sometime I have given him something to consider.

          • acontraryview

            “YOU ARE PRETENDING PARTICIPATING IN THINGS IDEOLOGICALLY AGAINST YOUR VALUES IS THE SAME AS DISCRIMINATING ON RACE”

            So if a person is ideologically opposed to the races mixing and turns down an order for a wedding cake for an interracial couple, that would NOT be discriminating based upon race?

            “NO SKIN CLOR IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO SEXUAL CONDUCT”

            Agreed. Nor is sexual conduct a covered category in anti-discrimination laws.

      • Michael C

        How are Jewish people harmed realistically when they have similar alternative options available. I’m sure there are Jewish businesses everywhere that would gladly accommodate them.

        What do you not understand about disfavored minority?

      • MarcoPolo

        The myth of suffering an “eternal damnation” is simply that…a myth!
        If it applies to the Christian, fine! But it doesn’t follow that it would apply to a person of a different faith, or no faith.

        I think we are finally seeing the last bastion of discrimination fall, and I celebrate the elimination of that obstacle.

    • PARKS CURTIS

      I DISAGREE STRONGLY … IF YOU RUN A JEWISH BAKERY AND YOU CHOOSE NOT TO CATER TO NAZIS WHO HATE YOU THAT IS YOUR RIGHT AS AN INDIVIDUAL … IF MUHAMMAD WANTS TO MARRY 2 CHILD BRIDES AND 2 OTHER WIVES ANMD USE HIS SEX SLAVERS AS FLOWER GIRLS I CAN LEGITIMATELY REFUSE BASED ON IT BEING AGAINST MY RELIGION JUST LIKE I CAN REFUSE IF THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES THEY VALIDATE BEASTIALITY MARRIAGE OR WHAT EVER … YOU GOT CONNED

      • BigHobbit

        If you can provide a single example of business has been found, in a court of law, to have a religious right to violate anti discrimination laws, you might have a point.
        Otherwise, all you are expressing is YOUR fantasy on how American ought to work, NOT explaining how it actually works.

        You lack empathy for fellow Americans.

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        Hi Parks, I believe the rules are to write in upper/lower case, otherwise, all capitals signifies you are shouting even though you may not be. It does not bother me, but some on the posts were complaining. I do not want your writings to get censored.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          T Y . yet is’nt that a LOW BAR FOR FREEDOM OF SPEACH WE SHOULD HAVE TO WORRY ” HEY … RADICAL ISLAM IS A PLAIN PROVABLE LIE … ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF TERROR ” THYT could save our land IS THEN CENSORED BY CONTROL FREEK LEFTISTS THAT DONT CARE ABOUT THE message As MUCH AS THE ” IMPORTANCE ” OF TOTAL CONFORMITY ? ” PAUL REVER please use you quit voice or you will be deported ” MENTALITY OF LEFTIST WH0O THINK THEY ARE ” conservative servants ” for the Pharisee CENSORS , looking only at external compliance to non significant ./ NON ISSUE rules while Jesus, God of Isreal looks at AND WEIGHS THE MEANING / MESSAGE AND SIGNIFICANCE of the HEART then these lemmings say ” you know what … even if this could save our land i don’t like this guys tone … WHOLE PREPOSTEROUS EXCESSIVE CHOICE OF 2 ENTIRE CASES TO use when ever he FEELS like it …WHO does this author think he is ! BLOCK HIM ! ” A: A PATRIOT LIVING IN POST AMERICAN COMMIE SHARIA GRAMMER NAZI AMERICA

        • PARKS CURTIS

          if they can keep pretending conformity is ” the larger issue ” … keep blocking diverting and ducking TGHEN they don’t have to face the truth … right ?

      • BigHobbit

        Yet you STILL don’t have a single concrete example of a business that successfully defended illegal discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
        Discrimination in commerce is a harm. No one has the religious “right” to harm others.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          my responses were blocked

          • BigHobbit

            “my responses were blocked”
            If your responses were blocked, how is it that you are able to respond?

          • PARKS CURTIS

            OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE ALTERNATELY BLOCKED ,….. JUST LIKE YOU FEEL YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE ON PEOPLES FREEDOM OF RELIGION BASED ON FALSE NARRATIVES OF MANIPULATION SO IS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CENSORED

          • BigHobbit

            This online forum Is owned by a private company, not by me. They have the perfect 1st amendment liberty to allow, or disallow whatever they like.
            Why do you hate American values and liberties?

          • Bob Johnson

            So if you want to be heard, remove the all caps, obey the rules. Just like other rules, made by other groups that we belong to. You will note that these wedding cases only take place in some states (Oregon, NY). If your company wants to discriminate on sexual orientation move to Texas.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          THE ” HARM ” DOESNT EXIST THAT IS A MANIPULATION . AND FALSENESS . IF THE COURTS CONSISTENTLY SIDE AGAINST OUR 1ST ANENT RIGHTS EVEN THOUGH YOU AND TRUMP SAY WE ” MUST” BOW DOWN TO THEM THAT IS FALSE . IT IS A CONTROL FREEK ISSUE LIKE MUSLIMS WHO DEMAND THERE FREE WELFARE FOOD MUST BE HALAL …/ THE WHOLE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS YOUR LEFTIST SUPREMACY AGENDA TO STOMP OUT OTHERS … DO YOU CHEER WHEN DECENT PEOPLE ARE HALLED OFF IN CHAINS AND CAGED FOR NOT BOWING TO YOUR WILL ?

          • BigHobbit

            I get that you do not like our American court system, (or the constitutional principles of equality and freedom from religious interference of others), but what you fail to do is show how your particular interpretation of how things OUGHT TO BE, per your opinion, have any relevance to the reality of HOW THINGS ACTUALLY ARE.

          • PARKS CURTIS

            I LIKE WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE NOT THE MOCKERY OF JUSTICE IT HAS BECOME : RULING IN FAVOR OF BURNING OUR FLAG : CLEAR SEDITION / INFAVOR OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS / FAVORING SEDITIOS IDEOLOGIES AND FORCING THE ” TRY everything ” SEXUAL AGENDA ON OTHERS/ NORMALIZING TYRANNY EXTORTION / WRONGFUL CAPTIVES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION…. NOT THE CROOKED COURTS TWISTING IT TO ACCOMMODATE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE AGENDAS THAT OPPOSE IT THAT ARE MARXIST CONTROL FREEKS IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT …TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BOW TO THINGS AGAINST THERE BELIEFS IS NOT THE PURPOSE BUT THE OPPOSITE OF ” REGIONS FREEDOM ” IN PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY … WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IS MORE EQUIVALENT TO XERXES THAN OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH IT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO ◄ Esther 3:5 ►

            And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. IF WE DONT BOW DOWN TO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST OUR BELIEFS TYRANNICAL MOTIONS ARE PUT IN PLACE TO DESTROY US … SOME ARE INSULTING AS YOU AREW … SOME ARE WORKING ON LAWS TO FINANCIALLY EXTROT AND PHYSICALLY PENALIZE … THESE ARE DISCOURAGEMENTS FROM FOLLOWING OUR FREEDOM OF RELIGION YOU do not like/ freedom from religious interference of others YOU DONT MIND IT IS NOT MY interpretation IT IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR VERY 1ST AMEN S A Y S CLEARLY … BUT WHEN LEFTISTS CALL UP DOWMN RIFGHT WRONG AND WRONG RIGHT AND OPERATE ON THESE PRINCIPALS THE PEOPLE PEACEFULLY LIVING IN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BECOME PERSECUTED AND THE LIE THEY HAVE ” HARMED ” OTHERS IS USED TO HARM THEM … CONTROL AND RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

            Esther 3King James Version (KJV)

            3 After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.

            2 And all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.

            3 Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?

            4 Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew.

            5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.

            6 And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had shewed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.

            7 In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar.

            8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them.

            9 If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.

            10 And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy.

            11 And the king said unto Haman, The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.

            12 Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king’s ring.

            13 And the letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.

            14 The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day.

            15 The posts went out, being hastened by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given in Shushan the palace. And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed.

          • BigHobbit

            Has anyone mentioned to you that typing in all upper case on the internet is equivalent to shouting in a small room? You do have a caps lock key, right? Can you go ahead and take it off Caps lock?
            Thanks.

          • BigHobbit

            Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a theocratic state – one where all the laws would come from one specific religion.
            Here in America, we have a pluralistic state, and our constitution explicitly prevents laws being based solely on any one religions ideas.

          • PARKS CURTIS

            THATS THE POINT … YOU ARE SEEKING TO ENFORCE A TYRANICAL MENTALITY RATHER THEN JUST SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THESE THINGS AGAINST CORE JUDEA CHRISTIAN VALUES … YOU ARE PRETENDING THAT THE CONSTITUTIOIN IS ” THEOCRATIC ” WHEN INFACT IT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE KIND OF THINGS YOU APPARENTLY ENDORSE LIKE CAP[TAURING MINISTERS AND BANK RUPTING CITIZENS AS A MANIPULATION TO GET YOUR WAY AND FORCE YOPUR WORLD VEIWS NORMALIZATION ON OTHERS … NOTICE I DID NOIT SAY THEY SHOULSD BE FINED OR IMPRISIONED OR BEHEADED FOR BEING GAY … BUT LEFTISTS / MUSLIMS ASK FOR THESE THINGS IN SOMETHING THAT IS OT ”
            HARMING ” ANY ONE … YOU ARGUMENT IS AS REDICULIOUS AS SAYING ”
            if uyoun dont participate in commununion you are not respecting our rights and shoulkd be punished ” YOU WOULKD NOT LIKE THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT YET HYPCRITICALLY SEEK TO FORCE YOUR WAY ON OTHERS SIMILARLY

          • BigHobbit

            I am insisting that America is a constitutional republic dedicated to equality and independence and freedom. I insist that you have the perfect liberty to believe whatever think you like, and I insist that I have the same liberty. And that all of the laws that apply to both of us do so equally.

          • BigHobbit

            OF course these people have the right not to participate in weddings. Everyone has that right. Nobody is forced to be in ANY particular industry.
            What is required, is that IF you CHOOSE to do business in ANY particular industry, that you do so lawfully.

          • PARKS CURTIS

            PERHAPS YOU WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF ALL CHISTIANS WERE EXTROTED PUT IN CAGES ? ( KING OF THEOCRACY MUHAMMAD WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU ) ITS NOT ABOUT “America is all about be more comfortable” YOU ARE PUTTING THE ” COMFORT ” F A GROUPBOVE OUR CONSTITUTION … AFTER 911 LEFTIST G W B SAID THE MAIN ISSUE WAS FOR MUSLIMS be more comfortable IN AMERICA.. SO INSTEAD OF JUST ACKNOWLEDGING REALITY WE LET BOSTOM BOMBERS I9N ETC … SO WOORIED ABOUTR MUSLIMS BEING COMFORTABLE BUT NOT ABOUT THYE 15 SHOT DEAD AT CHRISMAS PARTY … BELIEVE IT OR NOT THE GAY / MUSLIM ALLIANCE AGENDA IRONIC ALLIANCE SINCE AFTER GAYS INSIST WE ” MUST ” LET ISLAM CDONQUER AMERICA THEY WILL BE HEADED ) IS NOT THYE ” MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD ” NOTICE HOW YOU PUT ALL THIS ENRGY INTO SUPPORTING EXTROTION AND CAGING CHRISTIANS AND NONE INTO EXECUTION OF PEDOPHGILES
            YOU ARE ALSO BEING DISHONEST ABOUT OUR CORE VALUES NOT BEING JUDEA CHRISTIAN WHICH INCLUDES A CERTAIN TOLERANCE FOR OTHERS IF IT IS NOT TYRANICAL … YOU ARE EXCUISI9NG AND JUSTIFYING TYRANNY … OUR LAWS PROTECT YOU FROM INFRINGING ON PEOPLES RELIGIOS FREEDOMS LIKE NOT BEING REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN CEREMONIES THAT ARE AGAINST THERE BELIEFS … THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR YOPU IMPOSING YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS AND IF THEY DONT COMP0LY THEN PUNISHING THEM TO ” PROVE ” YOU ARE RIGHT IN STRIPPING THEM OF 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

          • BigHobbit

            You like the world you fantasize about, and are having trouble reconciling the real world with the one inside your head.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          also for a constitutionalist it was a states rights issue all along and one that rightfully following the constitution would determine to f o r c e by trheat of force ( ie hand cuffs / tackling v/ cages ) christians to participate in activities against there beliefs is n o t constitutional for …. your reasoning is that unconstitutional ruling being followed justifies you getting your way rather than the spirit and actual application of 12st amendment as it is written … thye single concrete example of the constitution itself ” religious freedom ” only matters to the left as a way to manipulate for head hunter / pedophile deceiver ” prophet ” followers to be allowed in the highest seats of government … but if a business is willing to not accept money because a principal of faith is important to them you want them further punished financially and perhaps incarnated right ? you think you have every right to operate 0n your belief system and are entitled to force it on others even if it goes against therese. has it ever even occurred to you they are suffering financially to begin with to be true to there beliefs ? again i loose a lot of money because i would not do tattoos of nazism / 666 / ill;amid rappers and people like eminiemm that sing about hurting women and gays … one guy recently threatened to cut my throat for not doing a gang tattoo who is vaguely neo nazi and whose membership is actually convicted in hate crimes against ” gays ” to the point of murder … should i be fined and thrown in the dungeon because i woukld not participate ? you have entirely missed the p[oint of thye ist amendment and failed to consiasier that it is also sticking up for ” gay ” people not to be slaughtered … i will never do a tattoo that glorifies muhammad who inspires grewat persecution not just of christians/ jews / women but also slaughtering of gays … you would twist my convictions around that that is ” so unfair ” so if i do this tattoop and take the money for the doc martin skin heads that is a “gay harte ” organization … and tens arte influenced and say ” thats cool dude lets go carry out the legacy of your gang if i bash a gay then i can join right ” then i have sold out against my beliefs … like wise if i promote islam whose beliefs are oppression i have sold out and could be used to recruit for things against vmy beliefs … so you see the same pricipal that allows me to follow my religions convictions and not bow down to the ” all important sacred ;’gay cake ” … also is actually in another situation defensive of not slaying homosexual hobbits such as yourself … just because you and the shire feel i should ” have to ” follow your belief system doent make it so… the skin head saying he would ” cut my throat ” is just a more extreme form of the pressure ” your a terrible person / you should be extorted v/ you should bev bound in chains amnd thrown in a cage with violent criminals ” … thgis is w r o n g v… when people honor there religious convictions to thye point of turning dowm mammon that vis not the time to ” punish them ” … that is the time to exercise all that ” empathy ” ” tolerance ” and respect the rights of others otherwise you are less of a ” gay ” tolerant hobhit free spirit empathizer and more of a tyrannical hobbit forcing others to do your will even if it is against there deepest convictionsc,,, you ghave vconviently ignored what i said before so let me repreat: the same convictions have lead me way bfrom promoting a notorious gay bashing gang of violence … tghis is my r i g h t byb the second amendment as it goes against my convictions as a christian … i am not saying to bash or behead ” gay b” hobbits … i am not even insisting that they shave there feet … why must you impose upon mec ? i actually had a ” gay ” friend that developed my film and was a local waiter , he was slain in a festival i did a poster for to raise money for aids medicine …. i dont agree with the lifestyle but that does not mean i am “not c0mapassionate “or ” no regard for others rights ” etc .,… if fact he was killed with a bludgeon bty a local bouncer who had supremacist oriented tattoos … i woukld have stepped up to defend him from being slain … i myself have had 2 muslims attack me with a budgeon while i was sitting and writting … anyway … you paint christians as the ” oppressors ” as the false narrative goes amnd this is furthest from the truth . i would gladly have stepped between him and tye bludgeon … i am not trying to enforce anything on your shire ,… your shire is trying to enforce things against our 1st amendment on me … if 1.6 billion lemmings jump of a cliff is that what “constitutes ” making it ” correct ” ? making cattle masters is a loosing proposition … no just because people consistently agreee with wrong that is unconstitutional does not constitute that it is ” right ” before blacks and women had the right to vote there was not 1 case that favored that … before people are ejected from windshields and die they may never have worn seatbelt nor died before… your logic is faulty … wrong and operating on false premises is not a measure for what is ” right ” … and to put this ” hate ” you keep hinting i have with words like ” empathy/ fellow americans in perspective i wopuld not participate in something i felt was glorifying / condoning / encouraging a promoisculious or unfaithful lifestyle for straight people either … i do not hold ” gat ” people to a double standard … look at charlie sheen … years of getting rich glorifying the character of a wealthy liar / promiscuous character who now has aids … promisdcuilos sheen is aslso outside of gods values and suffering for it v… … so if i dont asgree with the relativists ” gsay marriage ” in which many gay people also believe in ” open ” relationships c…. why is it so impossible for non christians to conceive that gods fences are there for opur protection / freedom safety and rights ? you have fallen for the false narrative ” evil christians are imposing on others in there values of no empathy b” and failingb to consider it would be seemingly alot easier to just collect the vmoney and not take a stand based on empathy … … i gave a freind neighbor and coworker a lecture about drinking and god and later found him hanging in a tree … no , i dont regret taking a stand . where i live people glorify these lifestyles b that the scriptures say are immoral and are dying around me all the time in a tiny town … another neighbor overdosed on sleeping pills and i later found out she was in an environment someone was able to poision her drink probably with ghb and she woke up in a hotel room full of men and was never able to cope with apprent gang rapec… i dont agree with the meterpsexual drinking lifestyle either bfor obvious reasons … but even if the consequences of these lifestyles wertent so devastatingly obvious i woukld still just trust god in faith … god was upset that the israelites did not wipe out the child sacrificing tribes involved in all manner of evil … he could see those lands building nuclear bombs for word destruction … he could see these lsands involved in terrorism … he can see ahead to what we cannot … so ewhen christians take a stand in what is true christianity just because the narrative is that its so ” hateful n” … how about considering the possibility that its in love ? obama uses a similar tactic to pressure us to bow vdowbn to things that are wrong saying that if we dont its ” slander ” to tell the truth … or ” the narrow hatred v of a fewc ” using the lemming bandwagon technique and false narrative pressure . … you have yet to asdmit not bowing down to the gay cake with rainbow sprinkles is a right … muslims in our land tricking / entrapping gasys on cell phone aps deceiving them they are gatyy then slaying them in america is an a c t u a l issue … how is it no one knows about that but e v e r y o n e knows about the ” gay cake ” priority ? see ?

          • BigHobbit

            Can you show any actual court cases that are aligned with your views? Just one? anywhere? anytime?
            Where a business has been found to have the religious “right” to behave illegally in commerce, on the basis of their religion?
            Of course, you cannot. Why? Because discrimination in business is harmful. You do not have the legal right to harm others, even if your motivation is religion. This is America.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          IS it” legal discrimination on the basis of religious belief”.if I refuse to sell pipes for hobbits to puff on at the shire ? OR am I just simply loosing money because principals of my religious views of healthy living are important to me ? IF hobbits smash out my windows because I did not want to participate in them getting cancer … you might say ” that grouchy unempathetic discriminating deserved it … i hope they law suit him and lock him up for intolerance … how dare him not respect the ways of the Hobit sHIRE SUPREMACISTS ! The 1st Amendment is not for Parkls … everyone knows Christians deserve to be persecuted and not honored for there beliefs … the 1st Amendment onbkly applies to every other group .. NOT religious freedoms of ‘silly ‘ Christians .. HOBBIT POWER ! STOP oppressing INEVITABLE Hobbitization … its all rubout OUR rights not yours . COMPLY or be made an example of ! “

          • BigHobbit

            You are not forced to sell anything. If you do enter business, you have the requirement to follow commercial law.
            If your religion prevents lawful behavior in one industry, you have the perfect religious liberty to pursue a career in an industry that is not incompatible with your beliefs. You do not have the religious “right” to behave illegally in business.

    • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

      Its their home. If someone wants to post rainbows on my house, should i be sued for shooing them away?

      • BigHobbit

        IF you rent your house, you need to abide by the same rules that every other person that rents a house. You have the perfect liberty to NOT rent your house. I am not sure what the “post rainbows on my house” comment is really all about, but basically, if you charge some folks to “post rainbows”, then you have to let everybody “post rainbows”, or, rather, you cannot discriminate on race, gender, national origin, or, in some states, sexual orientation. If you are not normally in the business of offering your house to those who wish to “post rainbows”, you are quite at liberty to not do so.

        • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

          Except this isnt rented. Checkmate

  • Guest

    The court has no choice, the NY constitution has said there wasn’t a right to religious discrimination since 1777.

    This business offered something for sale to a public that has an absolute right to religious freedom, there is no right to refuse a customer because they don’t pass a test of a religious belief they don’t share.

    Either the business rents their venue to people regardless of their beliefs about marriage or they shouldn’t be offering to rent it to the public at all. Run a private club, only rent to members of their church but the public has a right to not share the owner’s beliefs and still buy the offered service.

    • singlemom_4

      I think your suggestion for Christians to run it as a members only club is a good one, that way it’s not a service that is offered to the general public and they can put whatever stipulations in their clubs bylaws to avoid participating in others sins and in same sex ceremonies. That’s an excellent idea.

      • lizk

        that right has been taken away from Christians. God made man and women in the beginning.

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        some good point. Divorce: Jesus Christ approved under some conditions such as adultery, so if someone divorces an adulterer they will not be penalized by the Lord – it is not their sin, so they should have a right to re-marry. The marriage was not sacred to begin with since someone broke their oath and probably in their heart had an intention to break the oath when they felt the mood stirred them to fall in love with someone else or found a better opportunity. They just did not expose their true hear to their unsuspecting spouse.

      • Guest

        I agree, don’t offer something for sale you know you won’t sell as the law requires. A private club that only offers wedding services to members in good standing is the obvious solution to that. Even a private club of vetted clergy and the business only offers wedding services to people referred by them might work.

        There can’t be an invitation to do business and THEN a religious test the customer must pass, those two steps must be reversed to be constitutional in a land with universal religious freedom.

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        singlemom_4 I agree with the members only club is the best solution for Christians, however, gays are about 2% of the population and they may lose business that way. What are the chances a gay person coming in asking for a service? Just thinking.

        • Guest

          yes they may, the need to discriminate is theirs and the price of doing it is also theirs. Just as a Jewish deli gives up all potential pork profits to obey their conscience so does someone who feels they can’t sell wedding services as the law requires.

    • lizk

      do you not know we are living close to the end and God saw all this from the very beginning. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of all the sins and only Lot got out with his wife and daughters but his wife turned around because there was her family that was there? It was an example to us. Even Noah and his family were the only ones saved. The rest of the world died.

      • Guest

        Actually I know that no man knows when the end will come and Sodom and Gomorrah’s fate was because how they treated poor travelers to their lands and those that aided them. Walls at borders, deportations and calls for denial of social services are akin to that and some of the things that worries me.

        • Violet Vanderhelm

          Guest, read your bible – The Sodomites sodomized their guests, hence the name of their city Sodom and that is why God destroyed it – they disregarded God’s laws. The Sodomites even wanted to sodomize Lot and his family but they had angels to protect them which led to their escape.

          • Guest

            The rabbis discussed the sins of Sodom for centuries before Jesus in the Talmud and never mentioned such behavior. It was their horrific treatment of poor travelers – as the angels appeared to be – and those that aided them that brought God’s judgement on the towns. The mob asked Lot to send his guests out so they could meet them and once they had confirmed they were poor travelers they would have set upon them and Lot for helping them.

            No sex happened in the incidence of any kind, just Lot offering his own daughters in an attempt to buy off the mob.

            I do read my Bible and the Spirit guides me to the Truth of its words.

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        lizk – great points falling on deaf ears (most of the bloggers here.)

        • PARKS CURTIS

          MOST OF MY REFUTES WERE BLOCKED EVEN AFTER BEING ATTACKED I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO REFUTE THAT SIMPLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN THINGS AGAINST MT FSAITH IS NOT ” UNEMPATHRYC ” ETC … THE LAWS BEING TWISTED TO FORCE CHRISTIANS TO VIOLATE THERE MORALS IN ORDER TO AVOID UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARREST AGAINST OUR 1ST AMENDMENT IS ” UNEMPATHETIC ” THE CAPS GAMES ARE SIMILAR … CENSORING VALID POINTS BECAUSE SOMEONE FALSELY INTERPRETS USING A PREROGATIVE IS SO ” UNREASONABLE ” THE ESSENCE OF THE LEFT IS NOT ONLY FALSE AGENDA BUT FORCING OPERATING ON IT IT ON TO OTHERS ” FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF ME NOT FOR THEE ” RECREATED 1ST AMENDMENT ISSUE IN UNEVEN UNJUST APPLICATION WHERE ALL BUT CHRISTIANITY ARE RESPECTED ” MY LIFESTYLE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TEACHINGS OF YOUR GOD SO BAKE ME A PHALIC SYMBOL CAKE OR WE WILL EXTORT YOU AND PUT YOU IN A CAGE ! ” … REAL ” CONSTITUTIONAL ..” SO ” REASONABLE ” OVER AND OVER THE POINT IS TWISTED THAT ITS NOT ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN SOMETHING THATY IS WRONG BY OUR FAITH THAT IS AGAINST OUR FREEDOM OF RELIGION THEY SAY ” YOU ARE SO HATEFUL / &UNEMPATHETIC ./ & UNREASONABLE ” I HOPE YOPU DIE IN A DUNGEON BANK RUPT ” SEE THE IRONY … ? IT IS THE SAME SORT OF ARGUMENT THAT MUSLIMS FIND THE CROSS ON EUROPEAN FLAG ” OFFENSIVE ” …. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE CHOOSE TO INTERPRET AN INALIENABLE RIGHT AS ” OFFENSIVE … BOW TO OUR WILL OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES ” DOESNT MEAN WE ARE REQUIRED TO BOW DOWN WEATHER OUR TREASONOUS CONSTITUTION INTERPRETERS ” SAY SON ” OR NOT … NOTICE THE LEMMINGS AND CONTROL FREEKS DONT EVEN CARE IF IT VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONALLY ONLY THYAT WE MUST ABIDE BY A FALSE AND MISAPPLICATION … TRUMP TOO WENT ALONG WITH THIS BOGUS GAME THEN PRETENDED CONTRADICTORY ” I WILL STICK UP FOR CHRISTIANS ” AFTERT SAYING WE SHOULD BOW DOWN TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL CAGING OF PREACHERS AND EXTORTION OF BUSINESSES… IRONY TOO THE ” DEAF EARS ” YOU SPEAK OF NO DOUBT WOULD USE OBAMAS LINE ABOUT ” NARROW ” AND YET THEY ARE NARROWING US DOWN IN OUR RIGHTS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY WHILE PRAISING THE THINGS DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY … IF 2 DUDES ” REALLY ARE THE DEFINITION OF CORE FAMILY ” THEN WHY IS IT THIS COMMUNITY HAS NOT GIVEN BIRTH TO 1 SINGLE CHILD ? WHY IS IT THIS COMMUNITY IS PLAGUED WITH ASTRONOMICAL ADDICTION DISEASE AND SUICIDE ? THE F A C T S DOESNT EVEN SEEM TO MATTER . WHERE I LIVE PEOPLE TAKE CHILDREN TO ” ADULT FESTIVALS ” EXPOSING THEM TO ALL THIS … CONFUSING THEM ABOUT GENDER … WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT WE MUST AGREE : FAMILY ISNT FAMILY ANDMORE AND MEN ARE WOMEN … IF YOU DO NOT GO ALONG WITH AND ACCOMMODATE ? PARTICIPATE WITH THE FALSE NARRATIVE THYEY USE PRIMATE FECIES THROWING TANTRUM TACTICS AND IRONICALLY SAY ” YOU ARTE SO HATEFUL AND UNREASONABLE ! ” GOD SEES THIS AND KNOWS THAT THE REASON WE STICK YO OUR GUNS IS BECAUSE WE CARE WHAT GOD THINKS ABOVE THE MANIPULATION AMND PERECUTION … AS WELL WE CARE ABOUT THYE LIVES OF OTHERS … THEY TRY TO TWIST IT TO ” UNCARING ” WHEN ACTUALLY WHEN YOU TAKE A STAND IT IS FOR THE SAKE OF GOD AS WELL AS THOSE YOU ARE INTRODUCING ALTERNATIVE OF TRUTH TO . NOTICE A NON ISSUE IS PUT OVER A REAL ISSUE OF MUSLIMS KILLING ” GAYS ” WHICH I DONT BELIEVE IS CALLED FOR … WHEN I BROUGHT IT UP IT WAS QUICKLY DISMISSED ” OH THATS IRRELEVANT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR ‘HATRED ‘ OF NOT BOWING DOWN TO WORSHIP THE GAY WEDDING CAKE ” RIDICULOUS MAXIMUS … TYRANNICAL POLITICS SEEKING TO MAKE THE CONTROL FREEKS SEEM LIKE THE VICTIMS AND EXERCISING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF RELIGION AS ” CRIMINAL ” SEE THE PARALLELE WITH CENSORING SIMPLE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION / ARTISTIC LICENCE UPPER CASE FOR EASIER READING AND THROWING OUT THE VALID AND CRUSIAL POINTS ? … IF TRUMP WAS R E A L L Y DEFENDING CHRISTIANS HE WOULD NOT SAT WE HAVE TO BOW DOWN BUT INSIST OUR CONSTITUTION BE FOLLOWED … LIKE WISE HE WOULD NOT ONLY BE POINTING TO SYRIA BEHEADINGS BUT WHAT ABOUT WOMEN BEHEADED IN OUR LAND BY NATION OF ISLAM MEMBER …. AN ORG OF DOMESTIC TERROR HE HELPED PROMOTE THROUGH HIS VILE MUSLIM RAPPERS FOR 40 YEARS

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

      They sell a wedding venue. This arrangement is not a wedding. It is something else. Complaining about this is like complaining that your friendly Jewish butcher does not serve pork.

      • Guest

        Sorry they don’t get to say someone else isn’t having a wedding, it’s just a type of party.

        And yes if they didn’t offer wedding services they wouldn’t have to sell them, just like the butcher. But they did offer wedding services including ceremony support and it doesn’t matter if you like it or not many beliefs include marriage of couples regardless of their sex.

        There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offer the universal right to religious freedom shields the customer from it.

        If a business owner feels they can’t sell something and respect the customer’s right to religious freedom as the law requires they shouldn’t be offering it to the public at all.

        Simple as that.

  • SFBruce

    That cases like this continue to be affirmed is no surprise. It’s against the law in the state of New York to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is exactly what Giffords’ did. Remember, this is a business and not a church.

    • PARKS CURTIS

      DO YOU BELONG TO THE FIRST CHURCH OF SATAN BY ANY CHANCE … I SAW THAT WHEN I WAS IN SF … AN ACTUAL CHURCH … DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD ALSO BE FORCED TO DO 4 WIFE WEDDINGS AND CHILD BRIDE WEDDINGS FOR MUSLIMS IF THE SUPREME COURT SAYS THIS ” PEACEFUL ” RELIGION IS BEING ” DISCRIMINATED” AGAINST BECAUSE CHRISTIANS WONT BOW TO INEQUALITY OF POLYGAMY IN ISLAM … NOR PEDOPHILA OF ISLAM … ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR ” YOU ARE SO HATEFUL AND DISCRIMINATORY FOR NOT DOING WHAT WE WANT YOU TO DO ” ?

      • Bob Johnson

        The US didn’t even bow to polygamy for the Mormons.

  • Michael C

    Neither the State nor Federal government can force anyone to host a wedding in their backyard. Nobody forced Liberty Ridge Farm to go into the business of offering a product or service to the general public.

    If one owns and operates a business in one of the locations that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that business cannot refuse to provide generally offered products or services on the basis of a customer’s sexual orientation.

    If a business located in an area that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation refuses to provide a certain product or service equally without regard to sexual orientation, that product or service cannot be offered by the business to the general public.

    • afchief

      There are plenty of places the homosexuals could have held their wedding with no fuss, but they had to make a point of sticking it to people who hold different beliefs because now they can. What homosexuals do in private is none of my or anyone else’s business, but shoving their lifestyle down the throats of other people in public makes them hateful.

      • gizmo23

        You seem to care more what gays do in their private live than anyone here

        • afchief

          Yea, that perverted deviant behavior needs to back in the closet!!!

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            I agree but once escaped, it cannot retreat.

      • Michael C

        That’s an odd defense for illegal discrimination.

      • SFBruce

        The problem with your claim is this couple didn’t want to have sex at the Gifford’s establishment, they wanted a wedding ceremony, a service they provide to any heterosexual couple who show and are able to pay. The only “shoving” done here was by the Giffords.

      • BigHobbit

        There are plenty of lunch counters those blacks could have dined at. Other busses the could have ridden.

        You lack basic human empathy.

        • Josey

          The color of ones skin is so different than the choice to commit sin against God and humanity. One is born with their skin color that Almighty God gave them and the other chooses to live a sinful lifestyle. I am sick of those trying to link skin color as the same as choice to rebel against God. One day soon those who rebel will be cast out unless they repent and that time is now to repent. Jesus is coming very soon to make things right.

          • Bob Johnson

            So it would be alright to refuse to serve Buddhists? After all they do not believe in Almighty God or have not accepted Jesus Christ. And not all Buddhist are dark skinned.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            I suppose if the Buddhists were gay, they would have refused them too – it was not an issue of religious beliefs.

          • Bob Johnson

            Josey said “the same choice as to rebel against God.” You do realize that Buddhists do not believe in God and most have heard of the Christian faith. Therefore, are they not rebelling against God ?

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            Good point Josey!

          • MarcoPolo

            I doubt that many religious homophobes see the similarities between their staunch position and that of the Sharia followers.

          • BigHobbit

            “The color of ones skin is so different …….”
            Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation differs greatly in manner and scope, on the identity of those doing the discrimination, and the victims.
            It all violates the US Constitution exactly the same way.

          • Josey

            NO, there is no law made by congress about sexual orientation as be discriminatory, that came from a ruling from five supreme justices as a ruling not a law. Sexual orientation is a choice unlike race which one is born with and have no choice in the matter.
            Congress has never enacted a ban on private-sector sexual orientation discrimination, so the subject is governed largely by state or local law (most, but far from all, of America’s workplaces are covered by a state law or municipal ordinance banning sexual orientation discrimination).

            in other words it is left up to each state, the ruling has been exaggerated by the sodomite bullies so no it does not violate constitutional law! That is a lie and is made up and abused by the ruling of five supreme perverted justices.

        • afchief

          Why should I have empathy for a perverted deviant lifestyle that kills people.

          • Bob Johnson

            Because you claim to be a Christian.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            God separates from sin and we as Christians have to as well. We can respect and love the sinners but not their sin….and we can do it from a distance which is acceptable to God when the sinners refuse to repent or change their ways and acknowledge their sin.

          • afchief

            I am a Christian, but I don’t have to empathize with a perverted and deviant lifestyle. It is our job as Christians to warn people of this lifestyle and the consequences if they continue to live in it.

          • D.M.S.

            Good answer.

          • Violet Vanderhelm

            correct

          • BigHobbit

            You do not need to have empathy. What you need is to understand that businesses have to know and follow commercial regulations, and that personal religious views do not provide an exemption from lawful behavior in commerce.

  • Emmanuel

    Farm folks, pay up, close the ranch and be comforted that the couple did not get married on your property. You still won. They will be divorced soon so no big deal.

    • Guest

      Or just keep doing what they are doing now – not offering wedding services to anyone, just as the florist in Washington has done for coming on 3 years and doing just fine.

      If you run a deli and can’t sell pork to the public as the law requires for religious reason you don’t sell pork at all; give up selling pork you’re giving up all potential pork profits.

      Ditto wedding services.

      • BarkingDawg

        The law doesn’t require anyone to sell pork.

        • Guest

          And the law doesn’t require any one to sell wedding services.

          • Bob Johnson

            But if you do sell pork – you must sell it to everyone who wants to buy pork. Same with wedding services.

          • Guest

            Exactly!

          • BarkingDawg

            No, but if you do sell wedding services, you have to sell to everybody.

            Just as if you did sell pork. You would have to sell it to everyone who wanted to buy it.

            It really not that difficult of a concept to understand.

      • Cady555

        The owners of a deli can choose whether to sell pork. They can sell only beef products if they choose. They can also choose to sell only pork products.

        But if the deli does sell pork, it cannot refuse to sell pork to a person with a jewish sounding name.

        The business chooses the product not the customer.

        • Guest

          I completely agree, that’s why a business offering wedding services can’t discriminate illegally.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      Right on! Emmanuel – good points

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

    I wrote about this earlier today outlining ADF’s points to the Court (no links permitted here but it’s pretty simple to figure it out). Portraying these people as simple farmers is ludicrous. Just look at their website.

    In New York the nomenclature is different from just about everywhere else in the US. The Supreme Court is inferior to the NYS Court of Appeals. I expect ADF to make that appeal in order to get this case to SCOTUS which will deny to hear it.

  • 201821208 :)

    gotquestions dot org/gay-marriage dot html

  • bowie1

    “The Giffords are free to adhere to and profess their religious beliefs…” no they aren’t. They are being forced to against what they adhere to and profess with this requirement. Judge Karen Peters is committing perjury by her order and should be charged with a crime.

    • Guest

      No one forced them to offer wedding services and a customer can assume they are going to offer them as the law requires.

      They broke the law, they were fined, just like a parking ticket.

      Don’t operate a business illegally is the lesson here.

      • lizk

        Christians wee told they will never be forced to officiate same sex wedding so they were lied to, interesting.

        • Guest

          I know of no case of anyone being fired to officiate a wedding in the US or the world for that matter – do you have an example?

    • acontraryview

      “They are being forced to against what they adhere to and profess with this requirement.”

      Operating a business and offering certain products and services are choices. Since they have a choice of whether or not be in business, as well as a choice of what services they offer, there is no “forcing”. As is clear, they still own their business and they are not required to host same-gender ceremonies.

      “Judge Karen Peters is committing perjury by her order”

      How so?

  • acontraryview

    Well no surprise there. The law is very clear, as is their violation of the law.

  • Chip01

    “unanimously upheld”

  • FoJC_Forever

    The homosexual agenda isn’t centered on equal treatment, it’s centered on making society recognize it’s sin as being accepted and okay. The redefinition of marriage in America is in step with the utter moral decline and rejection of Truth taking place decade after decade here.

    To follow Jesus, a person has to be committed to the point that no matter what law or society dictate, the person is going to keep following Jesus. This world isn’t the reward of those who have accepted and entered into the Covenant between God and mankind through Jesus, it’s His Eternal Kingdom. One Day, this Kingdom will remove this world and universe, and those who are found hidden in Christ in God will inhabit it.

    There is nothing in this life worth giving up Salvation. Those who practice their vain religions love to debate and argue and compromise, but those of us who are following Jesus (the) Christ are going to continue to follow Him, no matter the cost.

    Judgement is coming.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

    • Valri

      There is no “homosexual agenda”. It is an invention of Fundamentalist Christians.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      FoJC_Forever well said, but falling on deaf ears of some of these posters.

      • Valri

        FoJC hates Catholics, homosexuals and women. I elect not to associate with people like that and I certainly don’t consider them to be Christians.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      FoJC_Forever, please tell that to Valri and cite Old/New Testaments which she perhaps misses.

      • Valri

        I miss nothing, Violet. I just don’t care for your brand of Christianity which I find to be oppressive and hateful.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      FoJC_Forever – very well articulated. Kudos!

  • Nidalap

    As perversion increases, religious freedoms decrease (Well, for Christians anyway). It’s almost like looking at a logical equation…

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      exactly

  • Violet Vanderhelm

    My opinion: I am a devout evangelical Christian, following Old/New testament doctrine and laws. My mom was the same. We do not believe in the homosexual life style but love and respect the individual. Old/New Testament calls homosexuality a sin and further states homosexuals will not gain salvation or eternal life. My parents owned a restaurant and we served homosexuals with the same good service, dignity, respect as heterosexuals as it was food and drinks. We always found them of good character and nice personality and great tippers. We did not discuss our beliefs about homosexuality with our homosexual clients. We knew some of our customers were open homosexuals as they came in with partners but there was no physical or public display of affection – we did not care for that display even if they were heterosexuals and I do not care to do that with the men in my life either. I do not know if we had a bakery would we have written homosexual messages on cakes or figurines or how that would play out. When you are open for a public business you do not know which customers are heterosexual and which are homosexual – all people should be served equally and fairly. I am still not sure about the event catering, or bakery issues, or issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Sinners come in many flavors: homosexuals, pornographers, drug abusers, prostitutes, murderers, thieves, liars, male/female whores, wife-beaters, child-abusers, etc, who go to public places for service and the representatives selling to them do not know what type of sinner they are. We are all sinners to some degree or another. All sins are bad – some more heinous, such as murder or physically hurting people, or stealing or lying, especially under oath. Will God hold Christians accountable for baking cakes for homosexuals if that is what state or federal law dictates? It is not as if Christians were given a choice or had a chance to render a direct vote. This is what the legislature, judiciary branch has decided without the Christian input. Is the alternative any better, fighting a cause in courts and losing and paying out monetary damage? I suppose as Christians we should be grateful to God and the government for permitting us thus far to worship Jesus Christ and Old/New Testament laws and attend churches. Soon enough those rights will be denied Christians when the anti-Christ gains power and the one-world government with the mark becomes more evident. When Lord Jesus Christ returns He will wipe away all sinners, sins and establish a pure, righteous, holy government on His shoulders. Christians have to wait until then. Maranatha Lord Jesus!

    • Cady555

      “…all people should be served equally and fairly. ”

      Yes!

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        Well, in my case, my parents business where I worked part time, was not an issue to sell to gays since it was food and drinks – we had no problem, serving gays and we enjoyed conversations with us. Gays did not feel prejudiced in any way by the management nor clientele in our restaurant. It appears that Christians have to be careful what they sell – can it be homosexual emblems or whatever the nature of the product is that could be contrary to God’s tenets and then accordingly do not go into that line of business. I.E. Bakeries where cakes with gay images may have to be made. I agree all people in a public business need to be served equally because any customer that walks in has no identity unless it is race you are scrutinizing. I.E. any person walking the earth and patronizing any type of business can be a thief, convict, prostitute, drug pusher, drug addicts, serial rapist, serial killer, child molester, and the owners/managers would not know it just by looking at them and yet would be obligated to serve them equally because one does not know the background of every customer. God only knows what type of people I served unwittingly – some transients out of state – perhaps, could have been a serial killer for all we would know, but if there behavior is polite and unassuming, then they get a pass to get good service.

      • PARKS CURTIS

        EXEPT CHISRTIANS RIGHT ? THE LAW IS BEING TWISTED TO NOT SERVE CHRISTIANS

    • Guest

      I agree. Now my church thinks God blesses marriages for those in the body of Christ regardless of male or female and since Jesus told us in the next world there will be neither marry or marriage that relegates all this to the similar ‘of this world only’ issues like what holidays to celebrate and what meats are ok to eat and not important concerns for those walking in the next world.

      Someday we will know for sure what God intended, the Spirit guides me to think this isn’t where His judgement will focus but on all those times in our lives when we did not love as He commanded. All sin is from failure in loving, and in the next world all will love one another – that is heaven.

      • Violet Vanderhelm

        Guest, What church do you go to? I have been attending a variety of Christian denomination: evangelical, mainstream, etc. Some Christian churches preach that after we die and are granted everlasting life or resurrection, we will inhabit the earth with the government on Christ’s shoulders and other denominations preach that we will be like spirit and no need to marry, etc. And some, some variations with different steps, involved, “rapture” etc. Loving God and OBEYING his commandments is primary, then the continuing part to love our neighbors as ourselves. Loving a person or respecting them does not necessarily mean you approve of all their actions or sins. We all sin but we need to admit to it in order for healing and change to take place. To repent our foolish or sinful ways and so that we may get forgiveness from God. Nobody gets salvation until they ask it from Christ, nobody gets forgiveness until they ask it from Christ. The arrogance of the multitudes precludes them from asking the Lord. If God loves us if we never love him and continue to sin, and will give us salvation anyway, then what is the point of following the 10 commandments and other tenets in the New Testament? God is love but He also detests sin; He is Law and Christ came to fulfill the laws. Spiritual law and secular law denotes order or else there would be confusion, chaos and anarchy as satan would have it. “Do what feels right, do your own thing and I love your actions anyway” is not a slogan Christians should adhere to. The Old/New Testament is the only standard, or else people can feel like they can do whatever they desire.

        • Guest

          LUTHERAN, Jesus plainly says that after the resurrection (not necessarily heaven) there will be no marry or marriage that we will all be like the Angels in heaven, all the same. That’s why those in the body of Christ are not male or female for we walk in the next world.

          Sin is violation of the law and all law derives from love. I worry about those who don’t love but it doesn’t stop me from loving.

    • Chrissy Vee

      Right on and Amen!

    • This style ten and six

      So when Jesus arrives he will slaughter the majority of the world’s population and establish a one world government. Strange that in the previous sentence you were against such a thing.

  • Cady555

    Let’s say an atheist couple owned a wedding venue. They dislike evangelicals, and evangelical christian beliefs are contrary to the owners’ beliefs about religion.

    The law forbids discrimination based on religion.

    Is it okay for the owners to refuse any customer who plans to have a Christian minister perform the wedding ceremony? If a Christian couple were told “we don’t serve your kind”, would you defend the owners’ “religious freedom” to discriminate and tell the Christian couple to accept the discrimination quietly?

    I wouldn’t.

    We as a nation have seen what happens when public businesses are allowed to choose which customers they will serve. It isn’t pretty. So we have established laws which prohibit discrimination against certain classes of people.

    Business owners are free to choose which products they will sell. They cannot say “I will sell my product to person A but I will not sell it to person B.”

    • Michael C

      Unfortunately, Cady, it’s doubtful that most will understand your analogy. They’ll say, “Who cares if the atheist won’t serve me, I’ll just go to one of the dozens of other bakeries that will gladly serve me because just about every business where I live is owned by a Christian.” With that, your point will be completely lost.

      • Cady555

        Yes. They don’t realize that even if there are a dozen other vendors, “we don’t serve your kind” is dehumanizing and painful. It stings.

        They also don’t acknowledge the power of peer pressure. If every business serves jews, there is no message or stigma. If your business would be the only one to serve jews, it is safer to your business to go with the crowd. Thus, no one would serve jews except Jewish businesses. Thus the ghettos that once “thrived” in European towns.

        We have anti discrimination laws for a reason.

    • Guest

      The real agenda is to establish a ‘right’ to religious discrimination, basically gutting the first amendment. That’s why these cases that have no chance are endlessly appealed, they are trying to get one to rule it’s ok to treat people differently because they don’t share the business owners beliefs about anything.

      And once that Pandora’s box is opened there will be no way to take it back.

  • Sethro

    Is it better to follow God’s Law and be subject to punishment for disobeying Man’s Law (always evolving and confusing) or follow Man’s Law and be subject to punishment for disobeying God’s Law (never changing and clear)? Which one of those bears the mark of the beast?

    The owners of this company could make changes to their operations which would allow them buysell products and services to a private community. However, this business is ran from their house and the charges were filed against a service, a sacred ceremony of binding man and woman into one flesh according to the word of Almighty God, thus I reject any notion the private services are subject to same laws held for public commerce.

    More energy went into destruction than simply turning cheek and finding one of the other 4 billion places to get wedding services. Yet, here we are in a new age were we just eagerly destroy anyone opposing our own ways or pursue superficial claims of fabricated discrimination. Show me the cruel and unusual discrimination on these alleged victims outside of being told “no we won’t do that for you because…”. The real, horrific, and unimaginable violations of human rights are abroad. I am pretty darn certain a couple of negative postings on Yelp and Facebook would’ve sufficed…

    I pray for Robert and Cynthia Gifford, for their strength facing persecution while obeying the will of Our Heavenly Farther. I pray for Jennie McCarthy and Melisa Erwin in that they repent and find truth by the love, grace, and salvation in Jesus Christ. No one is perfect but we all have freewill to believe and follow Jesus so that we can be washed free of sin.

    I hope our great nation finds its way with The Lord again even if that is seemingly a fantasy. With this land experiencing an era of moral decay, I’d still take a bullet for this nation. Its no easy task being a “beacon of freedom” to the world. Jesus bless you, gang.

    • Violet Vanderhelm

      Sethro – I agree totally

  • BigHobbit

    It is the responsibility of every business owner to understand the rules and regulations of the industry that they do business in. If your religion prevents your lawful behavior in one industry, you have the perfect religious liberty to do business in a different industry.
    Discrimination in commerce is a harm. No one has the religious “right” to harm others.

    • PARKS CURTIS

      IN OTHER WORDS ” BOW DOWN OR BE PERSECUTED / INSULTED / LIED ABOUT / FALSELY ACCUSED / EXTORTED CHAINED UP ANMD CAPTURED ” WELL THANKS FOR SUPPORTING ” FREEDOM ” SO MUCH … IF WE RENOUNCE OUR BELIEFS AND GIVE IN TO PARTICIPATE PERHAPS YOU WILL GIVE A LESSER FINE / IMPRISIONMENT ?

      • BigHobbit

        In other words, pick a job that comports with your beliefs. If you are against the killing of animals, don’t choose to be a butcher.
        If you cannot accommodate all who can legally marry, then don’t go into the wedding business. If your religion tells you women shouldn’t drive, don’t work at the DMV. If you don’t think blacks and whites should dine together, don’t open a restaurant.
        Not every career is compatible with every religious beliefs.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          SO BASED ON MY RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS YOUR SUGGESTION IS I SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF CERTAIN PROFESSIONS ,…. T H A T IS DISCRIMINATION …AS USUAL YOU LEFTIST TRY TO EQUATE JUDEA AXIALITY THAT HAS PROVIDED FOR YOU FREEDOM TO ISAM THAT IS AN OPPRESSIVE CULT … AGAIN YOU TRY TO EQUATE RACE TO IDEOLOGY … ENTIRELY DIFFERENT … AND I POINTED OUT WHEN YPU PLAYED THE RACE CARDS L;AST TIME IT WAS NOT EQUIVALENT … IF THE SUPREME COURT SAYS THAT CHILD BRIDES WILL BE ALLOWED NOT TO ” DISCRIMINATE ” AGAINST ISLAM … YOU SUGGEST THAT ALL CHURCHES THAT WONT PERFORM PEDOPHILIA CEREMONIES SHOULD SHUT DOWN AS YOU SAID “Not every career is compatible with every religious beliefs.” WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FORCED TO DO THINGS AGAINST OUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND IN YOUR BELIEFS GAY MARRIAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT VALUE THAT CHRISTIANITY FREEDOM OF RELIGION … IF I REFUSE TO CALL BRUCE JENNER ” MA’AM ” SHOULD I ALSO BE LOCKED UP FOR ” DISCRIMINATION ” BECAUSE I WONT AGREE AND OPERATE ON SAYING SOMETHING IS WHAT IT ISNAT AND ISNT WHAT IT IS ? JUST BECAUSE YOU GOT TRICKED THAT 2 MEN IS THE DEFINITION OF THE CORE FAMILY UNIT AND THAT MEN ARE WOMEN BECAUSE THEY ” SAY SO ” YOU PROBABLY WIOULD ALSO SAY ITS DISCRIMINATION TO KEEP A RA[IST IN A WIG OUT OF A FEMALE RESTROOM BECAUSE OF YOU ” NEW DEFINITIONS ON GENDER FLUIDITY ” SO THERE IT IS ,.,, YOU ARE ACTUALLY DPOING THE IMPOSING AND INSISTING ALL MUST GO ALONG WITH DISHONESTY … SIMILARLY WE PRETEND ISREAL IUS TO BLAME THYAT MUSLIMS ARTE ATTACKING / THAT THOSE TELLING THE TRUTH OF ISLAM ARE ” CAUSING JIHAD ” THAT ANY TIME A COP DOES HIS JOB AND THE PERSON HAPPENS TO BE BLACK ITS ” RACISM ” … WHEN YOU GET TRICKED INTO GOING ALONG WITH FALSE NARRATIVES ITS A DANGEROUS WAY TO OPERATE … THE LEFT IN CANIDA ISS ALREADY JUSTIFYING THAT PEDOPHILIA SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED AS ” REL;ATIVE ” AS ” A;TERMINATIVE SEXUALITY ” ON THE BASIS OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE … BY INSISTING THAT SOMETHING WICH ISNT : IS … WE THEN START THE SLIPP[ERY SLOPE … IF YOU OPPOSE ISLAM PERECUTING EVERY OTYHER IDEOLOGY YPU ARTE ” PERECUTING ” … THE NAZIS DID THIS KIND OF GAME PLATYING WHERE BASED ON THINGS AGAINST JUDEA CHRISTIANITY THE PROCEEDED TO ROB PEOPLE OF RIGHTS … COMMUNISM AND ISLAM AS WELL … GUESS WHAT ? ALL OF THEM ARE LEFTIST PHILOSOPHIES … EVEN THOUGH YOU CANT STAND TO ADMIT IT IT IS IN FOLLOWING THE SELFLESSNESS AND FAMILY ORIENTED VALUES OF JUDEA CHRISTIANITY / NO IBREEDING / ETC THAT MADFE WESTERN LANDS GREAT …. AM,ERICA WAS THE LAND PEOPLE CAME TOP TO AVOID RELIGIOUS PERECUTION IN FOLLOWING THE VALUES OF THE GOD OF ISREAL … BUT THE LEFT PLAYS THE ” EVIL CHRISTIAN ” NARRATIVE AND YOU DONT EVEN SEEM TO REALIZE YOUR VERY NECK HAS BEEN PROTECTED BY BTHOSE VALUES AS WELL AS YOUR RIGHT TO BE WRONG AND VOCALIZE IT V… WER PRETEND THAT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS SHOULD BE TORN DOWN IN THE SAME STATE A MUSLIM BROKE THOSE COMMANDMENTS CHOPPING OFF AN American grandmothers head … WHAT WOULD BE SO TERRIBLE ABOUT JUST ALLOWING CHRISTIANS TO PRACTICE THERE FAITH AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT OUR LAND IS FOUNDED IN CONSISTENT PRINCIPALS W/ THIS ? THE MAIN THING IS THE ” COOL CULTURE ” CANT ACCEPT THIS . IF YOU NOTICE BASHING CHRISTIANS AND WHITES IS NOW ” SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE ” BASED ON NARRATIVES OF HOW EVIL CHRISTIANS AND WHITES ARE … YOU ACTUALLY JUST SAID CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT ENTER ENTIRE FEILDS RATHER THAN JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THERTE ARE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS …

      • BigHobbit

        In other words, carefully consider what the laws actually are, BEFORE you decide to operate a business. If your religion is in conflict, it is YOUR responsibility to pick a different business.

        • PARKS CURTIS

          CENSORED AGAIN : AGAIN THE 1ST AMENDMENT SAYS I HAVE THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IT DOESNT SAY THAT MY FREEDOMS ARE TO BE LIMITED BY THAT … THAT IS Y O U R WILL NOYT THEWILL OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND THE FOUNDERS … AS WELL YOU SAY carefully consider what the laws actually are, BEFORE you decide to operate a business. If your religion is in conflict, it is YOUR responsibility to pick a different business.
          ” NOT ONLY ARE YOU ASKING ME TO BE LIMITED BY MY RELIGION WHICH IS AGAINST RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BUT YOU ARE CONTINUING TO IGNORE I ALREADY HAD A LIFETIME IN TRAINING IN ART AND A CRAREER P R I O R O R TO YOU LEFTISTS FALSELY CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF MARRAGE TO WHAT IT IS NOT … HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO FOR CAST THE FUTURE … IN YOUR HOBBIT FANTASY LAND IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO RENT A TIME MACHINE RIGHT ? SO NOW THAT YOU ARE STOMPING ALL OVER THE 1ST AMENDMENT BASED ON A FGALSE NARRATIVE IN THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE II AM SUPPOSED TO CATER TO YOUR FANTASY BY SWITCHING MY PROFESSION RATHER THAN HAVING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TO OPERATE BASED ON MY 1ST AMENDMENT RIGGHT .. RIGHT ?

          • Bob Johnson

            No, it means that if your religion is Christian Science, you should not bill yourself as a surgeon.

  • PARKS CURTIS

    PERHAPS THIS COUPLE SHOULD BE BEHEADED FOR NOT EXEPTING MONEY TO DO THINGS AGAINST THERE 1ST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH … THEN ” TOLERANT FREEDOM ORIENTED ” LIBERALS COULD LINE UP TO SPIT ON THEIR GRAVE … ANYTHING TO MAKE THE TATRUMN SQUAD HAPPY

  • PARKS CURTIS

    IF THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES TO DEFINE THINGS SUCH AS 2 MALES AS MARRIAGE / 4 WIVES AS MARRIAGE CHILD BRIDES AS MARRIAGE BASED ON A PUSH TO DEVIATE FROM THE ACTUAL DEFINITION NOF MARRIAGE IN JUDEA CHRISTIAN LANDS THAT STILL DOESNT CHANGE WHAT MARRIAGE IS … THE MENTALITY IS LIKE DSAYING ITS ” DEMOCRATIC ” WHEN GANG RAPE HAPPENS … NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE AGREE ON THINGS THAT ARE AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION TO CAVE IN TO GROUPS THROWING TANTRUMS THAT STILL DOESN’T MAKE WRONG ” RIGHT ” ,… PRETENDING THAT SUCH AN INTIMATE AFFILIATION IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITHY THERE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND THE SAME AS REFUSING SERVICE BASED ON CLOR IS NOT HONEST . CLEARLY THE DISCRIMINATION IS AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS FOLLOWING THERE FREEDOM OF RELIGION CONVICTIONS … ITS OPEN SEASON ON CHRISTIANS AND DRIFTING FROM CONSERVATIVE VAL;UES AMND BEING ” TOLERANT ” IS OFFICIALLY BACK FIRING AS NOW THE PERSECUTION INCLUDES CAPTIVITY AND EXTORTION FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH OTHERS VALUE SYSTEMS … THAT IS THE POIBNT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT NOT THAT WE HAVE TO GO AGAinst our religious values but that we are allowed to speak them and EXERCISE THEM IN A CIVIL WAY . BY FAILING TO PARTICIPATE THERE WAS NO ” HARM ” NOR UNCIVIL ACTION … THE LEFT IS DEMONIZING CHRISTIANS BELIEF SYSTEM AMND PUNISHING THEM AGAINST THE ASSURANCES OF OUR VERY FIRST AMENDMENT … THE IDEA OF OUR GOVERNMENTS PRECEPTS IS TO STAY OUT OF OUR RELIGION NOT TO INFRINGE ON IT … PEOPLE OF MARXIST THOUGHT BELIEVE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH THAT THE IDEA IS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT CANNOT HAVE GUIDING JUDEA CHRISTIAN PRINCIPALS … WHEN IN REALITY THAT IS WHAT IT IS FOUNDED IN AND THE WHOLE IDEA IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT NOT MEDDLE IN OUR REL;IGIOUS FREEDOMS WHICH IT IS CLEARLY DOING ..

  • William Stevens

    This clearly illustrates a broken society that forces people to obey laws that contradict what they have been taught to believe all of their lives. It is a path to hell and that is exactly where the USA is headed. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

    • Guest

      Are you talking about race? Sure sounds like the kind of things my grandfather said.

      No one is being ‘forced’, the business owners at that time offered marriage ceremony-wedding packages to the public knowing full well they couldn’t refuse a customer because of their beliefs, sexes or sexual orientation. It is their desire to break the law that is the problem here.
      The business no longer offers wedding services and so are now operating legally.

      Don’t offer something for sale you know you won’t sell legally is the lesson here.

  • https://10.0.3.7:5351 /- . |< .

    I guess this means if a homo midget comes stalking me and wants to beat me up, I must allow him into my own house – private property, supposedly according to the law.