‘Make Them a Cupcake’: John Kasich Suggests Religious Businesses Should Service ‘Gay’ Events

Kasich Credit Gage Skidmore-compressed
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — During an appearance on Monday at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, Republican presidential candidate and Ohio Gov. John Kasich suggested that religious businesses shouldn’t be able to decline to service same-sex celebrations.

Kasich, who identifies as an Anglican, and personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, was asked a variety of questions ranging from the topics of climate change, religious freedom, immigration and creationism. Reports note that at times Kasich was careful in his responses, including in discussing religious freedom.

He suggested that while churches should have conscience protections, businesses should “move on” in regard to homosexuality.

“I think frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them. But if you’re a cupcake maker and somebody wants a cupcake, make them a cupcake,” said the Ohio governor. “Let’s not have a big lawsuit or argument over all this stuff. Move on. The next thing, you know, they might be saying if you’re divorced you shouldn’t get a cupcake.”

The businesses that have found themselves fighting civil rights complaints for declining to service same-sex “weddings” have all stated that they regularly serve homosexuals, and have done so for years, but cannot fulfill orders that would be tantamount to participation in an event that would make them “partakers in another man’s sins.” (1 Timothy 5:22) None have declined to make cakes or sell flowers in general to homosexuals.

As previously reported, during a presidential debate last August, Kasich, 63, was asked by Fox’s Megyn Kelly what he would do if one of his children came out as a homosexual since he personally opposes same-sex nuptials. He outlined that he recently attended the “gay wedding” of a friend and cited “strong faith” and “God’s unconditional love” as factors in doing so.

“[G]uess what? I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay,” Kasich explained. “Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or I can’t love them.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That’s what we’re taught when we have strong faith,” he stated. “I’m going to love them no matter what they do, because you know what? God lives me unconditional love. I’m going to give it to my family, and my friends, and the people around me.”

“Issues like that are planted to divide us,” Kasich asserted.

Peter Ould, a former homosexual who now serves as a minister for the Church of England, outlined last year that marriage is meant to mirror Christ and His bride, the Church, and so Christians should not involve themselves in anything that would profane the sacred institution.

“Marriage is a God-given ordinance that speaks to more than just the love between two people. Biblical teaching on marriage shows us that the union of a man and woman is the icon of the union of Christ and His Church,” he said. “The Book of Revelation envisions the great wedding feast at the end of time, the union of the Bridegroom and His bride.”

“So doing marriage incorrectly is an act of idolatry. It’s a rejection of both the ordinance God has given and the meaning of that ordinance,” Ould continued. “Since the gender of the participants in marriage is important, mixing those sexes up destroys the point marriage was meant to represent. How can a Christian be involved in such a thing?”


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
  • gizmo23

    I agree with him. If following the law is going to be a problem in your business close it, sell it, or find a another line of work.

    • bowie1

      Cupcakes are probably not a problem. It’s when at a wedding for instance that it is a message that supports a gay marriage. If it were a birthday party it would also be no problem. It’s not about the people – it’s about the message.

      • Peter Leh

        but carry that thought further. If indeed making a wedding cake is a message that supports gay marriage…. why do these same people stop short at the customer ordering a wedding cake for another sinful service, say a second marriage that the bible defines as “adulterous”?

        would that cake, whether the baker is aware or not, also be a message that supports adultery just as the other supports gay marriage?

        • bowie1

          That would be less obvious since it is not likely that would be communicated nor asked. On the other hand two men or two women together is quite obvious by its appearance.

          • Peter Leh

            wait… are we talking ignorance or participating in sin?

            If it is THAT important not to participate would it not seem logical that the level protection be proportionate to the level proper inquires?

            If not, to me anyway, it negates the original argument we christians are so worried about protecting ourselves from participating in “sin” and just reinforces we are just really cherrypicking our moral standards.

          • Nofun

            Well you need lie detectors for each customer to ensure you don’t support sin. Does jesus turn a blind eye to sin by ignorance?

          • gogo0

            is ignorance a biblical excuse for facilitating others’ acts of sin?

          • acontraryview

            Why should something have to be obvious? If it is so very important for the baker not to be involved in things that are Biblical sin, shouldn’t be baker be asking relevant questions? Or, if the baker doesn’t want to ask such questions, they could simply put a sign up with a list:

            We Don’t:

            Make wedding cakes for people who have been divorced for reasons other than adultery.

            Make wedding cakes for people who worship a god other than the Christian god.

            We don’t make engagement cakes for couples who are having sexual relations outside of marriage.

            We don’t make birthday cakes for children born out of wedlock.

            We don’t make baby shower cakes if the mother-to-be is not married.

            I’m sure there are others…but that would be a start.

          • mitchw7959

            Bowie1, now you’re just making Christian bakers look lazy. Surely if rebuking sin and maintaining your integrity is sooo important to your denomination, then some of your fellow believers could do some datamining and crowdsourcing of publicly available information to preemptively identify same-sex couples or LGBT individuals. Y’all can think of it as your “homo marriage no-business list” based on the TSA’s no-fly list. A simple checking of the name against the list, and your Christian businesses can more effectively sneer at the gay people, affirm your (Christian, white, male) superiority and keep your place of business free from the homosexual cooties. Surely some of your fundamentalist brethren would be enterprising and dedicated enough to overcome this alarming “less obvious” loophole.

          • darh477

            Cute photo of your pet there. Does it live in a cage or do you let it run loose?

      • gizmo23

        Congratulations Bill and Joe doesn’t seem like it supports gay marriage

      • Nofun

        No one mentions the baker at any wedding. No message involved.

        They were asked to their job and they instead went with their hateful christian bigotry.

      • acontraryview

        ” It’s when at a wedding for instance that it is a message that supports a gay marriage.”

        If a baker makes a wedding cake and either of the couple has been divorced for reasons other than adultery, is that sending a message that the baker supports divorce and adultery?

        If a baker makes a cake for an engagement party and the couple are having sexual relations, is that sending a message that the baker supports pre-marital sex?

        If a baker makes a cake for a birthday party for a child who was born out of wedlock, is that sending a message that the baker supports having children out of wedlock?

        If a baker makes a wedding cake for a non-Christian wedding ceremony, is that sending the message that the baker supports worshipping a god other than the Christian god?

      • mitchw7959

        If a newly married lesbian or gay couple walk into a travel agency and tell the proprietor that they want the firm to book their flight and cruise reservations for their honeymoon, is that about the message too?

        If a emergency medical technician arrived on the scene of a car accident and found out that the occupants of the vehicle were a same-sex couple would the EMT be entitled to withhold medical treatment because he disapproves of homosexual marriage?

        Exactly how far do you people want to go in order to preserve the purity of “the message”?

    • Thisoldspouse

      If the constitutional freedoms that you live under are a problem for you, you might consider moving to another country. Might I suggest North Korea or Cuba?

      • gizmo23

        Not even worth arguing

        • Thisoldspouse

          So, you’ve made your choice? Let me guess, North Korea. They hate Christianity more. You’ll be deliriously happy there.

          • gizmo23

            Next thing you know black people and women will want to vote! The horror of it all. What will you do to survive the loss of the right to denigrate people

  • lee metzger

    Proof of how diabolical the gay movement really is can be seen in this issue alone. You’d think a gay couple would want a gay caterer, florist, baker and candle-stick maker since gays obviously sympathize with their own in a way no-one could. You’d think they’d go to their own because plenty of gays own such businesses, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO, they have to target Christian businesses because they hate Christian morality, and because they view Christians as the last frontier to conquer in their being accepted as a normative group. This last part alone shows the disconnect with reality they have because Muslims have proven by actions that they not only hate gays, but have no problem in some cases with even killing them simply because they are gay. Regardless, this is a fascist, tyrannical movement and it’s a good thing many states are taking a serious look at how they can enact legislation that would allow Christian businesses to opt out of providing services for an event that they sincerely consider to be a radical departure from God’s forever design for human relationships.

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

      Yeah, right. And back during the days of racial segregation, of Black customers were kept out of “Whites Only” restaurants, all they had to do was find some other place where they were welcome, rather getting all uppity about it. RIGHT?

      A business is not a church. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a bakery or a restaurant, a photo studio or a factory. They aren’t in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

      Conservative columnist Erick Erickson came to the defense of Christian business owners: “Committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work, they can share the gospel and glorify God.”

      Oh, and also rake in as much money as possible. You can wax poetic all you want about “glorifying God,” but at the end of the day these businesses wouldn’t exist were it not for the profit motive.

      Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”? And if a Christian florist agrees to provide flower arrangements at a Muslim couple’s wedding, does it mean he is necessarily endorsing Islam?

      If the answer to these questions is NO, what justification is there refusing service to a Gay couple who wish to get a wedding cake or celebrate their anniversary in a restaurant?

      • lee metzger

        there is no comparison here. Gays are served by even Christian businesses in all normative, “regular” transactions. The same cannot be said for blacks under the Jim Crow era, for example. The difference is clear. It is anathema for a Christian to be asked to participate in someone elses’ sins, and that’s exactly what they’re being forced to do when gays DEMAND they cater their weddings, etc. That gays see no problem with forcing all Christian to cater to their relational dispora, and that says a lot more about THEM than it does about Christians. You present “cases” listed have no bearing on this debate and will never occur because of it. Christians have no problems like I said in providing normative service. Need your car fixed? No problem. Need breakfast? No problem. Need a haircut? No problem. But participating in your wedding? No thanks. That’s asking me to go one step too far. If I’m a photographer, I have a right to say no to taking porno-type pictures. it is no different here. Gays however create straw men that they’re being persecuted and bullied by Christians, which is sheer nonsense. They’ve made a lot more enemies than they had before with their fascist-like tactics in this whole debate, and it’s no wonder many states are looking at making laws which will protect the Kleins of the business world. If I were gays, I’d take what i have while I still have it.

        • Peter Leh

          the anathema is to think any business is “forced” to do something when it is the business itself that sets up their own policy. There is no “force” when the business from the very beginning has “choice” of what to serve, how to serve, when to serve, whom served, where to served, and why to serve.

          The government only enforces what the business sets up in the beginning and is generally just concerned with the “how”.

          of the thousands of ways to deny service legally… dont pick the few illegal ones: religion, race, age, sex, disability, and in most states sexual orientation.

        • Nofun

          No one asked them to any weddings ..all they were required to do was the same job they would do for anyone else.

        • acontraryview

          “Gays are served by even Christian businesses in all normative, “regular” transactions.”

          Every product a business provides is a “normative, regular” transaction.

          “It is anathema for a Christian to be asked to participate in someone else’s sins”

          Christians who believe that should carefully consider the laws in place where they want to operate and then decide if they are willing to abide by those laws. If they are not, then they should not open a business.

          “and that’s exactly what they’re being forced to do when gays DEMAND they cater their weddings, etc.”

          All they are demanding is that the business operate within the law. Do you believe that it is wrong to require businesses to operate within the law?

          “If I’m a photographer, I have a right to say no to taking porno-type pictures. it is no different here.”

          Yes, it is different. A photographer is not required to offer photographic services for pornography. If the photographer does not offer such services, there is no violation of the law. In the same sense, a bakery is not required to offer wedding cakes. To make a proper analogy – if a photographer offered photographic services for pornography, but then turned away a black couple by saying that he only did pornographic photography for white people, then you would have an legal issue.

          “Gays however create straw men that they’re being persecuted and bullied by Christians, which is sheer nonsense.”

          The issue is violation of the law – not persecuting or bullying.

          “They’ve made a lot more enemies than they had before with their fascist-like tactics in this whole debate”

          How is it “fascist-like” to hold a business owner accountable to the law?

          “If I were gays, I’d take what i have while I still have it.”

          Yeah, kinda like when there were separate restrooms and water fountains for blacks. it mean, it wasn’t like they DIDN’T have restrooms and water fountains. They should have just been glad they had them at all, right?

          • lee metzger

            Totally false comparison to bring blacks into the picture. Blacks are “immutable” in that they are biologically determined to be of that race.. Gays are not immutable. The fact is that they ARE either a woman or a man and still free to change their behavior, as the literally tens of thousands of EX-GAYS proves no matter the lies spun today that they were “born that way.” As far as the law, it’s an unconstitutional law, merely the OPINION of 5 Supreme Court Justices probably bought out by homo special interests. As Justice Roberts said and to paraphrase, “don’t bring the constitution into this. It has nothing to do with this ruling.” As far as the law, since when did that stop liberals from disobeying the law? Gavin Newsome in California instructed his county clerks to issue samesex marriage licenses to gay couples in his district when gay marriage was illegal in his state, so PLEASE, PLEASE spare me your bleeding heart about “it’s the law.”

          • Paige Turner

            There are no ex gays. There is no such thing.

          • lee metzger

            Live that delusion if you wish. There are many of their testimonies online, and I personally know some of these. What, there are no ex-gays because you say so? I don’t think so

          • ewe …

            Says the white Aryan full of self importance

          • lee metzger

            Says the hater full of a mocking, jeering spirit. “Good” to see what your perspective on life has done for you….

          • ewe …

            I’m sure you have a mirror somewhere

          • Paige Turner

            There are conspiracy theories online too. It doesn’t make them true.

          • lee metzger

            conspiracy nothing. And like I said, I know more than a few of them. They exist. Too bad if you can’t handle the truth.

          • Paige Turner

            Yes the old “I knew a guy” routine

            Thats science isn’t it.

            Nonsense

          • lee metzger

            And you’re a liar. Get over yourself. And you people are science deniers. You deny biological science, which is the worst denial of all. It’s not like I have anything to prove. Gays are the ones killing themselves by their normative unnatural sexual practices. Like I said, you can’t handle the truth.

          • Paige Turner

            You deny reality- which is not healthy. You also post your stone age opinions and expect them to be accepted as fact without anything to back them up except “I said” or to hide behind the bible.

            Not healthy

            And you’re bearing false witness too.

          • lee metzger

            Not my problem you can’t handle the truth, and would rather believe a lie. There’s nothing for me to defend, either. Not a single statement I’ve made can’t be backed up with facts and proofs, all available to anyone who wants to do the research themselves. See, one thing I’ve learned with people like you. and that is to NOT provide proofs to people who I know down deep inside know very well that what I’m saying is true. You KNOW there are multitudes of ex-homosexuals. You can google their testimonies online, but you won’t do that, because you refuse to be proven wrong by the facts. You can google CDC statistics on how most new cases of HIV come from the homosexual community, but you won’t do that because again, you refuse to allow the facts to shape your opinion. As far as stone age opinions, what a logical fallacy that is. Remember, it is the GAY community that is inundated with sickness, disease and high numbers of suicides. Maybe it’s time THEY return to the “stone-age” concept of love practices by so many cultures, that being one man, one woman for life, faithfulness to each other alone. That might be stone age, but it’s also the healthiest and happiest living you will ever experience.

          • Paige Turner

            And yet you still provide no proof – you just say that you can.

            Demonising people is not love. That is hate and you should be ashamed of yourself.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Numerous ex-gays beg to differed. Just because you can’t shake your sexual perversion, don’t take it out on others.

          • Nofun

            No such thing.

            There are however ex-christians and boy are they happy.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Happy, and likely HIV infected. Hope it was worth it.

            Now, go take your meds. That HIV pathogen is one heck of a mutator.

          • ewe …

            Oh girl. Go away. You’re an old record and a bad one at that. You don’t even know the person who you said that too. Idiotic and ignorant. Crackpot.

          • ewe …

            Aimless pig

          • ewe …

            so true

          • lee metzger

            “No such thing.” So gays can’t change their behavior, but Christians can and become ex-Christians? Proof of how twisted your mind really is.

          • ewe …

            Straights can’t change their behavior. You dont seem to have a problem with all sorts of diabolical sadistic stuff straights do.

          • Gary Metzger

            false comparison. We’re all born males and females. Our natural inclinations are for those of the opposite sex. You must CHANGE that inclination, and FORCE that change, I might add, in order to reverse the natural process. As far as your last statement, that’s not even on topic. Who doesn’t have problems with diabolical acts committed by straights? However, the fact is, many serial killers were also homosexuals. The diabolical Roman Emperors were ALL homosexuals except one. I wouldn’t go there too far with “sadistic stuff.” It might prove too much and not in a good way for your case.

          • ewe …

            The serious problem with your fragile ego is that you speak for everyone. You’re not intelligent enough to convey your own outlook about human sexuality and back it up with sources and research material much less all of mankind. What you really mean is that you must be gay with same sex feelings but you suppress them and live a lie as a straight to accommodate strangers you don’t know and will never meet. That makes you infantile. Crackpot. Is this the Aryan racist named Lee metzger?

          • David & Jonathan

            Homosexuality is not a perversion. It is God’s gift to some of us.
            The only perversion here is the perversion of the Gospel. Which started in 390 after Christ, to let the pagan Roman Catholic Church for ever win from the Arians.

            The bible itself is one of the most pro gay books on this earth.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Then your “god” is a false god. The true, only God of the Scriptures has made it explicitly clear his intended design for sexual relations, and his condemnation of it’s perversion. You’re of the Devil if you pervert this truth.

          • ewe …

            Repeat. There is no such thing as ex gay unless you admit there are those who are ex straight. You don’t get to have it only your way for your warped agenda Bozo.

          • Faithwalker

            I have a family member who identified as a lesbian, but is now living as a heterosexual. Whether you may want to admit it or not. Many people have come out of all types of sinful lifestyles.

          • Nofun

            Its called living a lie …. anyone can do that … being gay is not sinful …being a bigot and hiding it behind jesus skirts IS.

          • Faithwalker

            Being gay is sinful according to God’s standards. If you choose not to believe that God and His word is real. Just ensure you are absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt before you have to stand before God on judgement day. Heaven and hell is real whether you choose to believe it or not.

          • ewe …

            Your book is boring and outdated entertainment twisted by warped control freaks who have convinced you to do their evil bidding. You know nothing of spirituality.

          • lee metzger

            No it’s not. And the proof that it’s true on homosexuality and its offspring is the incredibly high amounts of HIV still ravaging the gay community and the incredibly high amounts of suicide attempts among gays and tranny’s. It’s not our fault you all insist on playing with fire, expecting not to be burned. Time to get your head out of wherever it’s firmly entrenched and see the reality of this anti-natural way of life.

          • ewe …

            What source do you have about suicide rates? I don’t believe what you say and saying it isn’t enough. HIV is a virus. If you were exposed to it you also could contract It and that’s cause it’s a virus. Fool. Don’t even try talking about that. You know nothing except bigotry. It’s tired just like you. And answer my question miss dodger. Are you the same white aryan that calls himself Lee metzger?

          • David & Jonathan

            God’s standards:
            Love God
            Love your neighbor.

            These two commandments are foundational/constitutional. All other laws rest on these two

            Now try to explain to me, using only these two commandments, that homosexuality is a sin.

            You can not.

          • lee metzger

            yes it is sinful. All sinful means is “missing the mark.” In this case, the “mark” is marriage between one man and one woman. Gays discard the natural use of the body, physically, and exchange it for a fantasy. If someone tried to get in their car, and instead of doing it the natural way, as in opening the door, and insisted on entering the car through the trunk, you’d rightly say that person was a little bit “off” in the mind. It’s really no different here. The body was biologically designed for physical relations between a man and a woman, yet gays insist on discarding that, exchanging that for an act that is dangerous no matter how you look at it. Nobody is hiding behind Jesus skirts when they believe that. They’re merely exposing biological truth. You ignore it to your own peril.

          • Paige Turner

            Your sample of 1 is not proof. Sexuality is fluid for some people. Living as a heterosexual does not make her a heterosexual.

            And you know where you can place your judgement. The bible has harsh words about that behaviour.

          • Faithwalker

            If that is your reality you have a right to live in your own universe. But, for the rest of us that choose to live in reality of God’s truth we know that change is possible through Jesus Christ. Try Him.

          • Paige Turner

            Thats great except for a few things

            1) God doesn’t exist
            2) Jesus was a short middle eastern Jew who appears in the Koran

          • ewe …

            They couldn’t possibly even deal with anything you just said. Truth means nothing to stupid pawns of evil cash hoarding pigs screaming damnation.

          • Paige Turner

            Nice Christian Love you’ve got going on there.

            Jesus was in the Koran. Inconvenient isn’t it?

          • ewe …

            Wrong. You don’t get to hijack gODD and define it for everyone else.

          • ocrttol

            I personally doubt that. Jesus was a 1st Century CE Jew. He lived in a pre-scientific era. The concept of sexual orientation only emerged in the late 19th century.

          • ewe …

            Sexuality has been around since sex.

          • lee metzger

            That’s simply factually incorrect. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, and for thousands of years they have died inordinately young due to their pursuit of forbidden pleasures, which are forbidden for a reason. The results speak as to why.

          • ocrttol

            I agree that homosexuality has probably been present in humans and all other mammals since these species began. But my point was that it was always lviewedas a perversion until the concept of sexual orientation was developed in the late 19th century.

            It is true that the life span of some homosexuals has been significantly shorter than average. That is mainly because STDs are more easily transmitted by anal sex. However, about one in three gays do not practice anal sex. Also, lesbians typically do not either. As a result, lesbians have a much lower STD infection rate than gays. They also have a much lower STD rate than heterosexuals. So, for what reason would same-gender sexual behavior be forbidden between women?

          • lee metzger

            In answer to your last question, this is where one’s worldview comes in. I believe fully in an Almighty God who designed us, in fact the incredible design of our bodies demands that conclusion. Men and women were meant to express love between themselves, and our biology alone confirms that. Lesbianism is not love, it’s merely just “getting some.” It’s not the Creator’s original intention, and will never satisfy in the long run. It’s instructive when you see movies about them that you often have two women who have been jilted by men, find themselves in a really hard place in their life as a result, and so “fall in love.” Not the stuff on which you build a sound relationship at all. It’s a God thing for me. He didn’t design us for samesex relationships, and that includes lesbian ones. We have a penis and they have a pooter for a reason, and any samesex expression, lesbians included, is a denial of what God and nature itself has made us for.

          • lee metzger

            I’m responding to your comment to me last night because I can’t find it on this board. You don’t believe the high suicide rates among gays? That’s proof that you’re nothing but a troll and a liar to boot. I make that statement based what gays say themselves in sources like Slate mag. Now in your narrow, bigoted, anti-Christian world, does it count making statements straight from the mouth of the LGBT community themselves? And no, I won’t provide the link where I saw that statistic. You can google gay suicide rates as much as my 6 year-old grandson can. As far as HIV, it’s acquired almost 100% today through illegitimate sexual contact, which gays are notorious for engaging in. Lab tests on blood are so acute today that it’s virtually impossible to acquire it through a blood transfusion anymore, and all who have their heads on straight refuse to take drugs, period, much less do so with dirty needles. It’s phenomenal how people like you defend this behavior which is directly responsible for the deaths of so many young men. Who REALLY is the fool, troll?

          • ewe …

            Dear crackpot? What you forgot to say is that suicide rates among gay people occur because of the hatred and oppression they feel from people like YOU. That is also documented in the record. Typical you would omit that point. You also didn’t mention that you were speaking mainly of lgbt youth being pressured by your disgusting brand of so called Christian love. You are diabolical no doubt. Without question you are insanely obsessed with gay sex but I am here to tell you that you do not get to define other people. You only display your ignorance. HIV is a virus and I am not going to repeat that despite your attempt to label it gay. You are mistaken and sinister. 1) grow up and 2) get educated. So is this the white Aryan racist named Lee metzger? You have been asked four times now .

          • lee metzger

            Dear degenerate moron. Get out of here with your GARBAGE about why suicide rates among gays are so high. Christians receive nothing BUT hatred from your putrid community, the recipients DAILY of the most vile, hateful, diabolical vulgar language and death threats that FAR EXCEED anything that happens to your biologically-denying community of haters. The fact is also, even though WE receive far more from YOU than what you receive from anyone else that our suicide rates are the lowest of any group of people on planet Earth. At the least, one would think your community would want to listen as to why that is, but you’re so obviously only interested in casting your own hateful speech , destroying Christian businesses, and trying to figure out how you can continue to pork multiple sexual partners without acquiring HIV in the process. And wow, you know your biology! HIV is a virus. Did you just find that out? And so it’s a virus. So what? That sttill doesn’t do much for the fact that 50% of gay black men will acquire it sometime in their life. That still doesn’t negate the fact that HIV is ravaging gay men between the ages of 13-24. However, I’m sure you’ll still find a way to blame that on something other than the perverts who just can’t control themselves, won’t you? Get off my page you sick, degenerated moron. I’m done with you. Forever.

          • ewe …

            You give what you get pervert. Christian extremists will be the reason non profit religions lose that cozy status. You promote hatred through lies and repeat them despite being told you are uninformed. Notice you have yet to answer the question about if you are the Aryan racist named Lee metzger. That’s a sign of your denial and retardation. Obviously that’s FOREVER. You are a dishonest drama queen.

          • Gary Metzger

            Your reason for suicide rates is annihilated by critical thinking alone. Christians in the early days of the church were murdered for sport by the Romans in the Roman Coliseum. Yet did you see them committing suicide because of it? On the contrary, they were more determined than ever to spread the gospel, and much of the Roman Empire itself became Christian. This historical fact alone blows away the nonsense you all promote about why the suicide rate is so high among gays/tranny’s.

          • ewe …

            Fool. Tell your lies to some who has not visited and been told the facts about the coliseum. What you say is pure fiction. The Romans told the Christians to get out and stop preaching. So your fantasies ate once again popped. You’re a ridiculous egomaniac with a self appointed superiority complex .

          • ewe …

            Is this the relative of the white Aryan racist named Lee metzger?

          • David & Jonathan

            If you truly believed in Jesus Christ, you would know that he considered homosexuality to be inborn “born so from the mothers womb”.
            Read your bible and follow Jesus, not some man made construct.

          • ocrttol

            The big problem here is that so many Christians link God’s truth to their favorite English translation of the Bible. IMHO, they should link it to the original autograph versions of the books of the Bible as written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Going to the original language gives a very different understanding of the six or so anti-gay “clobber” passages.

          • ewe …

            That means that you are saying YOU are actually a homosexual but have chosen a heterosexual lifestyle. You can’t have it both ways. You truly are confused and living in a dark place.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Someone’s sexual orientation and their lifestyle are not necessarily the same thing.

            Also, I don’t like the terms “homosexual lifestyle” or “heterosexual lifestyle”….as if there’s only lifestyle people of a certain sexual orientation have? There’s millions of homosexual people in the world, you’re going to tell me they all have the same kind of lifestyle?

          • ewe …

            I am being sarcastic with faith walker.

          • ocrttol

            I have a hunch that if you had a sincere talk with your family member, you would find that she is — and always has been — a bisexual. That is, she is sexually attracted to both men and women, although probably not to the same degree.

            When a person with a bisexual orientation is interested in marrying, they frequently seek a spouse of the opposite sex. Life is a lot simpler that way. They will lead a life with far less hatred, bigotry, and prejudice directed at them.

          • glenbo

            >”Many people have come out of all types of sinful
            lifestyles.”<

            Why is it “sinful?”

          • Faithwalker

            It is sinful because the God of the Bible says so.

            “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Sexual immorality, whether same-sex activity or otherwise, is a sin against a person’s own body.

          • glenbo

            >”It is sinful because the God of the Bible says so.”<

            I have 3 questions:

            1) Why does God say so?

            2) What proof is there that any god exists?

            3) why should others abide by what exists only in your
            imagination?

          • ocrttol

            That depends upon how you define “gay.”

            Most people, human sexuality researchers, and the LGBT community define being gay as having a homosexual orientation and thus being sexually attracted only to members of the same sex.

            But religious conservatives often have their own definition of “gay:”: a person who engages in same-gender sexual behavior. By this definition a person with a homosexual orientation who is only sexually attracted to persons of the same sex who decides for whatever reason to remain celibate, to lead a life on loneliness, is an ex-gay.

          • Paige Turner

            So ex-gay is just a Gay person who is chaste/celibate.

          • ocrttol

            Precisely! However, that is only the understanding of people who define “gay” in terms of behavior. Most people define gay in terms of sexual attraction a.k.a. sexual orientation.

          • Paige Turner

            This feels like mental gymnastics.

            Let me put it this way. You cannot change your sexuality. If you are homosexual you cannot change that.

          • ocrttol

            If you define sexuality in terms of your feelings of sexual attraction then you are right. A person cannot change the gender(s) of people to whom they feel sexually attracted. That is a well established fact.

            But if you define sexuality in terms of the gender of the people with whom you have sex with, then you can change your sexuality. Bisexuals are attracted to both and women. With enough motivation, persons with a heterosexual or homosexual orientation can choose to remain celibate.

            I suggest dropping the word “sexuality” because it is so ambiguous and talk only about sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

          • Paige Turner

            Nonsence

          • ocrttol

            Absolutely. The problem is that the terms sexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality sometimes are used to refer to the gender of the person to whom you are sexually attracted — that is, one’s sexual orientation. That cannot be changed. But the same terms are often used to refer to the gender of the person(s) with which one engages in sexual behavior. Bisexuals can change, but for persons with a homosexual or heterosexual orientation, their only choice is between sex with one gender or celibacy.

            Whatever terms are used, it is important that they make it clear whether they refer to orientation/attraction or behavior/activity. Homosexual attraction, homosexual orientation, homosexual behavior are all clear, unambiguous terms. Homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality are ambiguous.and thus confusing.

          • Paige Turner

            That is the most ludicrous use of mental gymnastics to confuse and conflate a simple issue that I have ever seen.

            People cannot change which gender that they are sexually attracted to. Call it whatever you want.

            There is no ambiguity to this at all. You’re clouding this deliberately to suit your narrative.

          • ocrttol

            I will make one last try. to communicate my beliefs, which I believe are no different from yours.
            1. Sexual orientation means the sex or sexes to whom a person is attracted. It is discovered, and is not chosen,. It is fixed and not changeable.

            2. Sexual preference can accurately be used to refer to bisexuals, who often are more attracted to men than to women or vice-versa. It is a deceptive and confusing term when used to refer to persons with a homosexual or heterosexual orientation because such people are attracted to only to one sex and thus the term “preference” doesn’t have a clear meaning.

            2. A person has a choice in terms of their sexual behavior.
            — They can seek sexual activity with another person whose sex matches their sexual orientation, or
            — They can decide, for whatever reason, to be celibate, sexually inactive.
            Thus behavior is a choice.

            The problem is that, for some people, the term “sexuality” refers to sexual orientation while for other people it refers to sexual behavior. Since the former is not changeable but the latter is, my feeling is that “sexuality” should never be used unless it is defined carefully in advance.

            QED, I hope.

          • Paige Turner

            Celibacy is not sexual behaviour.

            Your “feeling” on the discussion is not a fact.

          • lee metzger

            You’re full of it. There are tens of thousands of ex-homosexuals and their testimonies are everywhere. Sexuality is a behavior ALONE, and all behaviors can be changed if a person so desires.

          • Paige Turner

            Please show me these tens of thousands.

            If it works, why has Exodus international shut its doors? And JONAH been proven quackery?

          • ewe …

            Crackpot

          • lee metzger

            it was always defined in those terms until gays realize they’d better make a case for being born gay or else they’d get nowhere in trying to achieve civil rights status.

          • ewe …

            Gay people don’t have to do one thing to accommodate filth like you. You don’t matter to gay people. What you demand means nothing. Prove you’re born heterosexual first and practice your wacky preaching yourself. You’re weird in a strange bad way. Is this aryan racist named Lee metzger?

          • lee metzger

            Wrong. Tons of ex-gays got married to an opposite sex partner for life, and have many children through them. Your arguments just won’t rescue you from reality, try as you might.

          • Paige Turner

            Where are these “tons”?
            No one ever see or hears from them.
            There are none posting on this site thats for sure.

          • glenbo

            >”That depends upon how you define “gay.””HIV still ravaging the gay community and the incredibly
            high amounts of suicide””religious conservatives have their own definition of
            “gay:””for whatever reason to remain celibate, to lead a life
            on loneliness, is an ex-gay.”<

            Bingo!

            If the conservative anti-gay nutcases can demonstrate that
            they have scared a gay person out of homosexual “behavior,” then they can claim that person has been “cured.”

            How can anyone know if the “cured” homosexual never returns
            to a gay lifestyle?

            Abstinence of behavior is NOT a changing of sexual
            preference.

            This is why it is rejected by ALL the medical associations.
            It is harmful.

            But most of all, what is the purpose?

            What is the benefit to doing this to people?

            None.

          • lee metzger

            No. I believe in denying gay people their “rights,” because I don’t believe any human beings should get rights on the basis of their sexual preferences. We don’t give rights to people because they’re inclined to drink and end up alcoholics. We don’t give rights to drug users and to individuals who abuse their bodies in other ways. Neither should we give rights to individuals who frankly pose a real health risk because their sexual practices alone are responsible for the spreading of serious diseases.

          • glenbo

            >” We don’t give rights to people because they’re
            inclined to drink and end up alcoholics.”<

            OH MY GAWD!

            Yes we do.

            Alcoholics, drug abusers, child molesters, and rapists are
            allowed more rights than LGBT people. Not only do they have the “right” to drive a car, the “right” not get fired from their jobs, not get evicted, not be denied services from public accommodations, but the above “immoral” people
            actually have the right to marry the person they choose. And we also allow convicted murderers to marry as well.

            You are clueless.

            Will you read my posts please? And answer my freakin’
            questions?

            What diseases to lesbian get? Why are they punished?

            And what is your definition of “natural” or “nature?”

            Lee, you are coming off as an ignorant fundamental nut case bigot full of hate for no good reason who has no clue.

            By your own logic, your “choice” of being religious and
            religious freedom should NOT be constitutionally protected because according to you, “choices” are NOT deserving of protections.

          • acontraryview

            “Totally false comparison to bring blacks into the picture.”

            I didn’t bring blacks into the picture in the post you responded to.

            “Gays are not immutable”

            Basis?

            “change their behavior”

            Changing behavior does not change one’s sexuality. Please cite one person who was exclusively attracted physically, emotionally, and romantically to members of the same gender and now is exclusively attracted physically, emotionally, and romantically to members of the opposite gender.

            “As far as the law, it’s an unconstitutional law”

            What law are you referring to that is unconstitutional?

            “Gavin Newsome in California instructed his county clerks to issue samesex marriage licenses to gay couples in his district when gay marriage was illegal in his state”

            And that would be relevant, how? Are you suggesting that since Newsom violated the law it is OK for others to do so?

            “spare me your bleeding heart about “it’s the law.””

            What is “bleeding heart” about stating that people are expected to operate within the law? Do you believe that people should NOT be required to operate within the law?

          • lee metzger

            Yes you did bring blacks into the picture in the last paragraph of your post. Do you even read what you write?

          • acontraryview

            You are quite right. My mistake.

          • lee metzger

            speaking of the law, the Supreme Court once denied personhood to blacks. Should people have just accepted that, and treated them as something less than human as a result? Obviously not, and it’s no different here. Have your fictitious weddings if you want, but get someone to service the wedding who is sympathetic to you. The most ridiculous thing about this is that on what is supposedly the happiest day of their lives, gays want to force someone to participate in their wedding who they KNOW doesn’t want to be there! That doesn’t even make sense. So, I say, all they’re really interested in is rubbing the noses of Christians in the dirt and if you’re honest, you know that’s true.

          • glenbo

            Lee makes the same old false claim:

            >”Gays are not immutable”<

            He is repeating Family Research Council lies and propaganda.

            He is assuming that since homosexual BEHAVIOR is a “choice,” it is undeserving of any protections and acceptance.

            Little does he realize that homosexual ATTRACTIONS are NOT a “choice.” If so, Lee himself would be bi-sexual. I doubt he will admit that he is capable of “choosing” to be gay. Why?

            Another thing he seems to be ignoring is that RELIGION is a choice, yet religion is constitutionally protected.

            Why?

            Why should his “choice” of behavior protected, but an innate sexual orientation should not be?

            He will not be able to answer this question without:

            A) Admitting his very own sexuality can be “changed” making himself a bi-sexual.

            B) Admitting sexual orientation is indeed innate, therefore
            rendering homosexuality immutable.

            C) Admitting religion has NO right to be constitutionally
            protected, as religion is a choice.

            But even more important, who is anyone to tell others they
            are not allowed to make choices based on “God given” free will?

            The freedom to make personal “choices” is the very meaning of Freedom and Liberty, things these so-called phony “Christians” insist they have and demand, yet simultaneously hypocritically placing conditions and
            restrictions upon the Freedoms and Liberties of others for no logical or rational reason.

            Makes no sense.

          • acontraryview

            it’s all he has

          • lee metzger

            ALL freedom needs to be boundaried my friend, and the Lord above all has given us very wise boundaries in this area. We are only true “free” in a way that a train is free as long as it stays on its tracks. The freedom that so many in your community talk may start out as freedom but ends up in a mere struggle to survive. You can keep that kind of freedom. I mean, isn’t it amazing that human beings who insist they are free to choose homosexuality, bisexuality, polyamoral, throuples, etc, exercise that freedom and then surprise, SURPRISE, find that the results of that unbridled “freedom” end up rocketing them into an existence of pure, unadulterated hell. I just read that soon it is very possible that 50% of black gay men will acquire the HIV virus. That’s not the results of freedom my friend, that’s the results of enslavement. Further, saying gays are not immutable has nothing to do with the FR Council, but with example after example of former gays who have returned to God’s original design after experiencing the reality of the gay way of life. One can say homosexuality is unchangeable until it hails from the sky, that doesn’t make it so. The testimonies of thousands of ex-gays says otherwise, proving beyond dispute that homosexuality indeed IS a choice in every sense of the word. As all objective know it is as well.

          • glenbo

            >” the results of that unbridled “freedom” end up rocketing them into an existence of pure, unadulterated hell.”” The testimonies of thousands of ex-gays says”” homosexuality indeed IS a choice”<

            Let’s suppose for argument’s sake homosexual attractions are a “choice.”

            So what?

            What gives you or anyone the right to discriminate against them? Who are you to decide what choices people are allowed to make? You come of as totalitarian and fascist.

            Religion is a “choice,” therefore I can treat you unfairly…according to your logic.

            By your own “reasoning,” religion does not deserve
            constitutional protection because it is a choice.

            I have 3 simple questions for you:

            1) Do you believe homosexual ATTRACTIONS are a choice?

            2) Are YOU able to “choose” to be homosexual? Do you have
            that ability?

            If not, why?

            3) Why is religion constitutionally protected since religion

            and religious behaviors are obviously choices?

          • JoeNCA

            The exact same argument was made about different race couples, that one can choose the race or gender of one’s partner, therefore it can be subject to discrimination.

          • Peter Leh

            “The fact is that they ARE either a woman or a man and still free to change their behavior”

            religion is a choice as well… so I take it you wish to remove religious protections just because it is a “choice”?

          • Nofun

            Yes. Much easier to change religions than innate sexual orientation.

          • ewe …

            Very perceptive

          • lee metzger

            People are born religious. The plurality of religions in the world proves this. Homosexuals aren’t born that way at all. They are born with female and male anatomy just like everybody else. They’ve just decided to leave the natural use of their bodies and exchanged it for an unnatural use which result has been to put many of them in early graves. Nobody should get civil rights because of that.

          • Paige Turner

            And you know this how?

          • Peter Leh

            “People are born religious”

            great… they “choose” their religion (sometimes multiple religions) just as they “choose” their sexuality (sometimes multiple orientations).
            🙂

          • lee metzger

            We are born religious because we’re made in the image of God, with His imprint upon our soul. Big difference there and making a deliberate decision to follow our desires and inclinations. Choosing multiple orientations is merely to disregard all natural, God-given boundaries, and let our sexual passions go wild. Not a smart choice either, and CDC stats about the results of such behavior prove it. The fact is, if biblical, New Testament patterns for sexual behavior were followed, that being one man, one woman, sex reserved for marriage alone and with your spouse alone, std’s and aids would be relegated to the history books. Would you dare deny this to be true? No matter how you look at it, all have certain inclinations, but to practice them is a choice of the will. No gene forces you to have multiple, sexual partners. No gene forces you to choose a particular person to have sex with. It’s an act of the will, always. Yet religion? That’s inbred in all of us, and is as natural as is the sun rising and setting every day. Religious freedom is a fundamental right, and deserves 1st Amendment protections. Sexual freedom is another thing entirely, and no-one deserves civil rights on the basis of THAT.

          • Peter Leh

            good argument. However religious choice or even the right to refrain from any religion is not the same as what other say is immutable. protected groups are not exclusively immutable therefore it is not necessary to say “Totally false comparison to bring blacks into the picture”

            is it.. but it is not. Chrisitans still attempted to withhold equal protection of American citizens based of race, sex, religion and now sexual orientation.

          • lee metzger

            I don’t know of any Christians who atttempted to withhold equal protection based on race, religion, etc. Some did in the past, but they belong to the past, not now. Sexual orientation, however, is another question. and even then we’re only talking participating in what we right believe to be a serious destruction of a key foundational pillar in our society, marriage and the family. The bottom line is, Christian’s refuse to participate in gay weddings, and will continue to do so. If they have to contract out catering services with only church and religious groups from here on out, which they can legally do, then that’s exactly what they will do. It’s not our fault this culture is in patent denial of what science, biology and nature clearly tell us is so. Funny thing is, the few gays I personally know totally understand the Christian position, and would never force a Christian business to cater an event that would be a deep affront to sincerely held beliefs. In fact, if it wasn’t for what even Bill Maher calls the Gaystapo, this wouldn’t even be an issue, yet some are so desperate to force society to accept their perverse notions of sex and relationships, that they’re more than willing to put an entire group of citizens out of business. Doesn’t speak well for their character on any level.

          • Peter Leh

            “I don’t know of any Christians who atttempted to withhold equal
            protection based on race, religion, etc. Some did in the past, but they
            belong to the past, not now.”

            Is 1995 close enough for you? the SBC finally apologized for using the Bible to keep the black community as close to slavery as possible that means in 1994 and before there were those who opposed such resolution. Read any history book about race in the south and you will find a sheriff, judge, or governor in good standing in their southern christian denomination.

            “The bottom line is, Christian’s refuse to participate in gay weddings, and will continue to do so”

            as is our right. more so there is no requirement to participate at all.. as a citizen

            “If they have to contract out catering services with only church and
            religious groups from here on out, which they can legally do, then
            that’s exactly what they will do”

            that is just ONE of the many options we as christian business owners have.

          • ewe …

            People are born religious? You are a certified crackpot.

          • Gary Metzger

            That’s right, troll, we’re born religious. Take any civilization that has ever existed at any time in history in any corner of the world. They all have their gods and goddesses, deities and spiritual figureheads. Whether you’re talking about the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Moors, or a myriad of other people groups, they all have a religious complex that demands the worship of something other than ourselves. It appears that YOU’RE the crackpot on this one.

          • ewe …

            People are taught propaganda from birth. You are seriously demented. Must be the inbred part of being related to white Aryan supremacists that blocks your brain from knowing reality.

          • glenbo

            >”Gays are not immutable.”<

            Are you saying sexual attractions are a choice?

          • lee metzger

            of course they are. ALL behavior is a choice, including WHO we are attracted to sexually.

          • glenbo

            >”of course they are”<
            Are you able to choose to be attracted to a man?

          • lee metzger

            My conscience alone tells me it would be unnatural to be attracted to a man. That the smile of a man could NEVER do for me what the smile of a woman could. That the touch of a man could NEVER do for me what the touch of a woman could. Gays aren’t attracted to men by love. The only attraction they feel is for their anatomy and exit hole, and THAT’S not love, not by ANY standard.

          • glenbo

            >”My conscience alone tells me it would be unnatural to
            be attracted to a man.”<

            That’s not what I asked.

            I asked you if you could CHOOSE to be sexually attracted to another man.

            You seem to indicate that you are unable to, but you are not clear in your answer.

            So are you telling me your sexual attractions are “natural?” Or come “naturally” to you?

            Are you implying your sexual desires are inborn? Or innate?

            I’m not talking about love…yet…I am simply talking about
            sexual desire/attraction.

            I thought you were insisting anyone can control their
            attractions.

            Are you asserting that some people can switch their affections, attractions and desires but not you?

            You seem to be contradicting yourself.

          • lee metzger

            Only opposite sex attractions are natural. Samesex attractions are not. Our biology was made for opposite sex, sexual relations. Emotionally we are wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. That’s not my opinion, but confirmed by nature and common sense alone. That’s also why people everywhere feel an inner, natural disgust at even the thought of samesex relations because they simply go against the grain of nature no matter how you examine the situation. The denial of the gay community on this means nothing. It simply confirms they’re living in denial of what they inwardly know was never meant to be, and the emptiness they eventually feel is directly tied to their incredibly high suicide attempt rate.

          • glenbo

            >” Only opposite sex attractions are natural.”<

            What is your definition of “natural?”

          • ewe …

            Wrong but repeating the facts won’t inform someone like you anyway. Is this the white supremacist Lee metzger?

          • Gary Metzger

            Proof you’re wrong. You can’t rebut one thing I just said factually, so it’s back to stupid, troll-like questions. You must be one sad and sorry human being in real time.

          • ewe …

            Talking to yourself again? Or your white supremacist relative?

          • ewe …

            Refuting your lies is all anyone has been doing. You live in your head.

          • ewe …

            It’s not my function to prove your ridiculous false tales and lies.

          • ewe …

            What facts?

          • ewe …

            Buying a cake is not porn you fool. And you are mistaken about everything else too. If you prefer to discriminate then you have to become similar to the Amish people. Now get lost. You’re a broken record long past DVD’s. Crackpot. Keep it up. I can’t wait for the day religions are taxed. That will shut you numbskulls up once and for all.

          • acontraryview

            Perhaps you responded to the wrong person?

          • ewe …

            My mistake . I apologize

          • ewe …

            My mistake. I apologize.

        • Paige Turner

          Taking photos at a wedding is not participating. The bride and groom are not asking you to participate. They are asking to take pictures.

          Just like asking a mechanic to service your car, its none of his business what you do with that car.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Take pictures of what, exactly, and in what context and spirit?

            You are the worst kind of propagandist. And you’re pretty transpartent about it.

          • Paige Turner

            Suppliers of services are not participants in anything.

            They are paid for a service not for their participation.

          • Nofun

            Exactly.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Let me ask you why customers are absolutely free not to trade with any businesses they choose, for any reason or for no reason, but business owners don’t have that same right? Sounds like unequal treatment to me.

            I think you should be forced to buy from an avowed Christian business for all your supplies. Like that?

          • Paige Turner

            You’ve missed the point completely.

            A merchant is supplying a service and in many places is unable to discriminate against anyone who wished to trade with that merchant. The merchant is not being asked to participate, just to provide a good or service. Its very simple. A merchant cannot provide a good or a service to one person and not another. Thats called descrimination

            Given that Christians make up 70% of the population then there is a high chance of them being shop keepers or suppliers of services.

            Your point about being forced to deal with them is a reality in many places where they are the only supplier.

          • qcubed

            Their kind often does miss the point, being fixated on a non-issue dictated by their belief in a non-entity.

          • Paige Turner

            If you discriminate, youre breaking the law. Your bible is not a defence.

          • Paige Turner

            Thats not how the law works.

            If you Provide a public service then it needs to be provided to everyone.

            Your religious beliefs don’t trump the law nor do they allow you to discriminate. You can have your beliefs, you just cant use those beliefs to engage in discrimination.

            You cannot force people to make purchases from a merchant.

          • qcubed

            any ‘real’ Christstain would abhor the idea of capitalism. Btw, that is a ‘Don’t Read to Me’ banner, is it not?

          • Ax2root

            False. Participation is by ENABLING the Activity to take place and be celebrated.

            Ephesians
            5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
            5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
            5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
            5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
            5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

          • Paige Turner

            Thats great – however its irrelevant.

            The bible does not trump the law. You can believe it if you want however a judge will have another view.

            If you break the law, you cannot use the bible as a defence.

          • Ax2root

            The freedom of religion in the Declaration of Independence is one of the principles which The Law of the Land, The Constitution is based upon

          • glenbo

            >”The freedom of religion in the Declaration of Independence is one of the principles which The Law of the Land, The Constitution is based upon”<

            WRONG.

            Not once is the word God, Jesus or
            Christianity mentioned in the Constitution. And although the words God, creator
            and providence are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, it was not
            used after Cornwallis’ surrender in 1781.

            Our founding fathers were merely deistical or
            ambivalent about a Christian god.

            Thomas
            Jefferson rejected many core Christian beliefs and wrote of a “wall of
            separation” between church and state.

            Anyone claiming that America is a “Christian
            nation” is wrongfully and manipulatively attempting to inject a religious
            agenda into a government that was clearly designed to operate religion-free.

          • Ax2root

            I said our Law of the Land is based on the freedom Principles recognized as God Given and INALIENABLE RIGHTS in the Declaration which include the Freedom of Religion

          • glenbo

            >”I said our Law of the Land is based on the freedom Principles recognized as God Given”<
            The constitution does not mention God.
            America is NOT a theocracy.
            NO religion is mentioned.
            Sorry.

          • Ax2root

            The freedom of religion is acknowledged as a GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHT.

            It can’t be taken away by govt or persons.

            Read the Declaration of Independence for yourself

          • glenbo

            >”Read the Declaration of Independence”<
            The Declaration was not used following Cornwallis' surrender.
            Read a history book, please.

          • Ax2root

            The Declaration of Independence is as relevant in 2016 as it was in the 1700’s.

            Read the founding documents yourself.

          • Ax2root

            The Conatitution is the law of the land based on the FREEDOM PRINCIPLES acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as GOD GIVEN and INALIENABLE,

            inalienable means can never be removed

          • glenbo

            >”GOD GIVEN”<
            Which go?
            There are lots of gods. How can you know if you chose the correct one?
            There is a huge problem operating a nation as a theocracy.
            It is divisive, exclusive and unfair to those who have chosen one of the many other gods and it is unfair to non-believers.
            America is not a theocracy.
            It is secular.
            If not, the Constitution would clearly say so.

          • Ax2root

            The Declaration of Independence is EXPLICIT in naming ” which God”

            Read it

          • glenbo

            >”The Declaration of Independence is EXPLICIT in naming
            “which God”<

            Wrong.

            It ONLY says “God.”

            You make foolish claims and assertions yet you are incapable
            of backing them up.

            You have wasted enough of my time with your meaningless and baseless gibberish.

          • Ax2root

            Wrong.

            The Declaration of Independence explicitly says ” NATURE’s GOD”

            next time read it first

          • Paige Turner

            Yes, you have freedom of religion and also freedom from religion. One goes hand in hand with the other. Thats the law and its constitutionally protected.

            When one has freedom from religion one does not have to have a religion.

            Religious views and beliefs do not trump the law or the constitution. You are still free to have your religion and your beliefs however if those beliefs are in breach of the law, then the law wins.

            For instance, If your religious beliefs are that people should be put do death for working on the Sabbath thats fine however you are not able to put them to death. That is murder.

            See how simple and elegant this all is.

          • Ax2root

            False.

            The Declaration of Independence recognizes the God – given and Inalienable Freedom OF religion

            INALIENABLE means can never be removed

            Including by govt

          • Paige Turner

            If you are correct, why then isn’t Christianity the national religion? Not everyone believes in God or religion hence the freedom of religion.

            Freedom of religion does indeed mean freedom from religion. It has to. You cannot make someone comply with your religious beliefs. If that were true, you wouldn’t be able to eat that bacon cheeseburger or that pork chop.

            See how it works?

            No one is stopping you having your religious beliefs. Jews don’t stop you eating pork. Hindu’s don’t stop you eating beef and you cant discriminate and hide behind religion as an excuse.

            If the Jewish shop owners doesn’t sell pork, thats OK. If, however he only serves Jews then he is discriminating. He has to serve everyone the same way and can still maintain his religious beliefs. He cannot break the law and say that his faith is the reason.

            The law doesn’t work that way. Your religious beliefs are protected. Your bigotry isn’t.

          • Ax2root

            Read the Declaration of Independence for yourself and see that freedom of religion is acknowledged as a GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHT

          • Paige Turner

            Which God are you referring to?

            Zeus?
            Allah?
            There are a lot to choose from. America is a secular nation and has no national religion.

            Using all capitals shows your impotent rage and that you have lost your argument.

            The declaration of independence is not a legal defence against discrimination.

          • Ax2root

            Haha,,,it’s not rage, it is capitalized for emphasis.

            Read the Declaration of Independence which is in effect now as it was at the Founding Of the USA.

            Nature’s God……..that is the Name of The God this country recognized is The God where all our God Given and inalienable rights emanated from.

          • Paige Turner

            You havent specified which God. There is no such thing as “Natures God”. Who determines this?

            The USA has separation of church and state for this very reason.

            Your religion does not trump the law of the land. Religious belief is not a defence for breaking the law.

          • glenbo

            >”Participation is by ENABLING the Activity to take place
            and be celebrated.”<

            Any Christian who uses electricity on the Sabbath participates
            in the violation of the 4th commandment.

            How do Christians decide which parts of the bible to ignore?

            Selling a cake is not “enabling” anything but eating.

            Officiating is.

            This is nonsense.

          • Ax2root

            The Holy Spirit of Truth who always is in agreement
            with the ” rightly divided ” ( bible Timothy) Word of God is how Christians know The Truth and discern good from evil

          • glenbo

            >” The Holy Spirit of Truth”” Word of God is how Christians know The Truth”<

            What makes it true?

            How can anyone know the bible is “true?”

          • Ax2root

            Do YOU desire to know The Truth?

          • glenbo

            >”Do YOU desire to know The Truth?”<
            Um…are you avoiding the question? more.
            What makes the bible true?

          • Ax2root

            First You asked me the question ” how can anyone know the bible is ” true”

            So , for the answer it is is necessary to know IF you desire to know The Truth.

            Do you desire to know The Truth?

          • glenbo

            >”Do you desire to know The Truth?”<
            Absolutely.
            Are you going to answer my question?
            Last time…How can you know the bible is true?

          • Ax2root

            Good. I agree with you that you know the truth.

            It is known by the inner man of the heart…the spirit man which knows things as the outer man of the soul and body DESIRE TO KNOW the truth

            Peace

        • mitchw7959

          Why wouldn’t a mechanic be entitled to refuse to repair the vehicle brought in by a homosexual, if the proprietor has a reasonable expectation that the homosexual will be using his car to travel to a gay bar or to visit the home of a sexual partner?

          Why wouldn’t a restaurant be entitled to deny serving breakfast to a homosexual, on the grounds that providing sustenance and nourishment to a person who may later on that day engage in homosexual behavior is “participating in sin”?

          If the barber finds out that a straight person getting the haircut is doing so because he’s going to among a same-sex couple wedding party, can the barber refuse service?

          • lee metzger

            And name me one example of a gay being refused service for a “normative” service? Even if one exists, that certainly doesn’t speak for the whole. But marriage is a whole different ballgame entirely, in an entirely different category. It’s time for gays to admit that most people will never, ever accept their mental illness and denial of the natural and normative use of the body, and it’s certainly time to stop targeting individuals who they KNOW cannot partake in their delusional redefinition of marriage.

          • mitchw7959

            “[A]s Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen
            for their newborn’s first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room
            and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a
            change of heart. After “much prayer,” she decided that she couldn’t
            treat their baby because they are lesbians.”

          • lee metzger

            As I said, they don’t speak for the whole.

          • Diaris

            No links – as usual.

          • Michael C

            is your google broken?

          • mitchw7959

            GRANDVILLE, MI — The owner of a West Michigan auto repair shop
            announced on Facebook he wouldn’t hesitate to refuse to do business with openly gay customers. … The post, published Tuesday morning on Dieseltec’s business Facebook page, says openly gay people aren’t welcome and homosexuality is “wrong.”

          • Diaris

            One stupid lie after another.

          • JoeNCA

            Facts have a well known liberal bias.

          • Nofun

            Yes, christian bigotry is a growing problem in this secular country.

          • mitchw7959

            In the East Texas city of Pittsburg, one restaurant is going out of
            its way to demonstrate the need for such protections, banning a same-sex couple from ever returning and citing a policy of only serving men who “act like men.”

            After eating breakfast at Big Earl’s Bait House and Country Store,
            Collin Dewberry and his partner Kelley Williams were told by their
            server that they were not welcome to come back, KTLV-7 reported
            on Tuesday. She cited a three-year-old company policy — printed on a
            sign at the door — that the establishment reserves “the right to refuse
            service to anyone,” prohibits “baggy pants,” and requires that “men act
            like men and women act like ladies.”

            The server’s father, owner Earl Cheney (“Big Earl”), told a local reporter
            that while “homosexuality, Blacks, [and] Hispanics” were all welcome to
            eat at his restaurant, it was the duo’s public display of affection
            that lead to their banishment. “A man’s supposed to stand up and be a
            leader. He’s not supposed to be a woman. He’s not supposed to come in
            here in a dress,” he explained. The couple denied the Cheney’s claim
            that they had been rubbing legs and Cheney refused to show the reporter
            the surveillance video. Cheney’s admitted his daughter told the couple
            the restaurant does not “like fags.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Big Earl’s Bait House and Country Store”

            Somehow, I am not surprised at all that a place named that is not the most gay-friendly of establishments.

            Anyway, though, they could easily be sued for that, if they haven’t been already. Especially if they’ve allowed man/woman couples to have similar displays of affection.

          • JoeNCA

            Calling it a mental illness is exactly why these laws are needed.

          • lee metzger

            It is mental illness. Hypothetical. If you saw someone trying to get into their car by going in through the trunk instead of just opening up the front door, I’m sure you’d agree they were a little “off” inbetween the ears. Yet gays do exactly the same thing. They leave the normative sexual act and exchange it for one involving a place on the body which is designed to be nothing but an exit port for sewage waste. If you can’t see why that’s a problem, that’s not my fault…..

          • JoeNCA

            [vivid description of lesbian sex strangely missing]

          • lee metzger

            Your answer is merely a deflect from the point of my post. As far as lesbian sex, the results from that aren’t too good either. Plenty of stats available on that if you’ve got the energy to look them up….

          • JoeNCA

            And points out your obsession with the man-on-man action.

          • lee metzger

            Wrong. The man-on-man results speak very loudly to the sexual deviancy that so infects the gay community. The men are little more than sexual predators, and that is just a fact. Lesbians are just hopelessly lost chicks, many of whom have had terrible experiences with men. Life for them is reduced to finding love from ANYONE, women included, or what they think is love. Guess you don’t have the energy to look up stats on lesbian sex, because it has its own special problems, and proves I’m not obsessed with just man on man self-destruction.

          • JoeNCA

            That quite the broad brush you got there.

          • lee metzger

            The issue isn’t whether or not the brush is “broad.” The issue is whether or not these things are true. They ARE, and that’s all that matters. Gays can try to sanitize their life all they want, but you can’t sanitize what is polluted at its core.

          • Nofun

            They aren’t invited to the wedding.

          • ewe …

            You are far from normative

          • Paige Turner

            No, he cant refus service because he isn’t being asked to do anything except fix the car or cut hair.

            All other scenarios (gay bar, wedding etc etc) are legal too.

            Religious beliefs do not trump the law.

          • lee metzger

            God’s laws always trump man’s laws.

          • Paige Turner

            Not in the real world.

            A judge is going to disagree with you and you’ll pay the price.

            Take it up with god when you’re dead, meanwhile obey the law

        • JoeNCA

          The Kleins of the business world found out they can make money on hatred. There’s no money in refusing divorced couples. So they don’t. Melissa Klein knew the couple, Melissa Klein explicitly told the lesbian couple she’d bake their wedding, and when they got married, let one of them come into her store and do a cake tasting, KNOWING she’d be baking a cake for a lesbian wedding.

          It’s only when her husband found out and realized he could make a couple hundred thousand off you suckers he made a big deal. And you fell for it.

          The only God the Kleins of the business world worship is cash.

          • lee metzger

            You’re lying about Melissa Klein telling her they’d do her wedding. Further, the LGBT are the only ones displaying hatred toward anyone. Wow, just opine on one of their websites you believe in traditional marriage alone, supported by biological science I might add, and you’ll be the recipient of the most disgusting, vile, inflammatory rhetoric you ever heard in your life. Sorry, but we’re just not going to participate in their Twilight Zone existence. As far as money in refusing divorced couples, I’m not aware of divorced couples coming in and asking for cakes celebrating unbiblical divorce. The Kleins support the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. It’s not their business to conduct interviews with every prospective customer to see if they’ve ever been divorced, and if so, then why. I’m not even sure if they can legally inquire into such matters. A gay wedding, however, is another story entirely, especially since their interest is only political as their real desire is to entirely shred the institution of marriage as it’s always been known.

          • JoeNCA

            Damn. You’re onto me. When I wake up every morning next to my husband, I think to myself, “My work here to shred the institution of marriage is done!”

            In fact, my entire life revolves around you, Lee Metzger. You’re not in any illusion whatsoever.

        • qcubed

          There are many ‘gay Christians’, you idiot, but deny them all you want. They are far more human and compassionate than you will ever be.

        • glenbo

          >”Gays however create straw men that they’re being
          persecuted and bullied by Christians, which is sheer nonsense”<

          OH MY GAWD!

          If you voted against same-sex marriage, and/or voted for a
          politician who promised to “protect traditional marriage,” you directly participated in the persecution of gays.

      • Polish Bear

        Total nonsense.

      • Faithwalker

        First of all your comparison of homosexuals to blacks is downright offensive. I and many others in my race cannot stop being black, but homosexuals have and continue to come of of the homosexual lifestyle. So stop trying to compare race with sexual behaviors. You are comparing apples to oranges.

        • gizmo23

          Since people can change they religion there should be no laws against religious discrimination? People can change their sex so sexual discrimination is out also?

        • acontraryview

          “I and many others in my race cannot stop being black,”

          Well that’s interesting. So if many of your race cannot stop being black, then you are saying some can. How does those who are not part of the “many” change from being black?

          Let’s put forth a little hypothetical here. Let’s say that it was possible for a black person to change into a white person. Do you think it would be reasonable for us to have laws which said: “Well, since you can change into a white person, you should do so if you want to be treated equally under the law, but if you choose to remain black, you will not be treated equally under the law.”?

          “but homosexuals have and continue to come of of the homosexual lifestyle.”

          Choosing to no longer act in accordance with one’s sexuality does not change one’s sexuality.

          • Faithwalker

            So if many of your race cannot stop being black, then you are saying some can. How does those who are not part of the “many” change from being black?

            In no shape form or fashion did my statement imply that black people can stop being black. But, I do understand that you posed the question to set up your hypothesis. However, your hypothetical question is not based upon any set of reliable or verifiable facts. So I will not address your hypothetical question, because it is irrelevant.

            Choosing to no longer act in accordance with one’s sexuality does not change one’s sexuality.

            Let me share with you a hypothesis that is based upon fact. Fact one, homosexual’s have come out of…. and still to this day… even more are continuing to come out of that lifestyle along with other types of sinful lifestyles, whether be it homosexuality, identifying as an atheist, agnostic, skeptic or a practicing occultist etc. Over the years It has been verified and reported that those that were freed from those lifestyles are leading fruitful and productive lives. Lets be clear…the release came only through those individuals accepting the Triune God into their hearts. Triune meaning…God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let me be clear as one who has experienced and is still experiencing the transformational power of the living God. You see, when you accept the Triune God, into your heart…not just your mind, but your heart. It is only then… you are no longer a slave to sin. However, the freedom only takes place when one decide to stop making him or herself their own gods, but instead humble themselves to the true and living God while accepting HIm as the Lord and Savior of their hearts, minds, bodies, and soul. Only then can one experience the freedom from not only spiritual death, but physical, and mental, death as well. Once one start identifying themselves through the lens of Biblical truths as opposed to identification through their sinful struggles, your struggle start to diminish.

            When we humble ourselves to our Creator and His word…this is where we start becoming victorious with the struggle of sin. It’s all about choice, you can choose to succumb to the the flesh or choose Christ.

            Galatians 2:20 tells us: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ that lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.

            So In essence those who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle and and have been freed from the struggle with their sexuality has made a choice to live out their faith in God, His Son and the Holy Spirit and not their flesh. They chose to turn their sexual struggles over to Christ who is faithful and just to allow us to be victorious in the battle between the flesh and the spirit.

            Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

            1 John 5: 4-5
            4. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world– our faith. 5. Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?…

            Lastly, my prayers are always going forth for those who have been fed the lie that God does not exist, and is not real.

            John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

            I am praying for you.

          • Guest

            Actually racial identity is a choice for anyone of mixed racial heritage. President Obama could consider himself ‘caucasian’ if he wanted to on odd days, and ‘black’ on even days, both would be equally as true and his own personal choice. He is protected regardless of his race by both state and federal laws.

          • Faithwalker

            Actually, you are incorrect. Those of mixed racial heritages are still going to identify and be identified not only by their skin color, but also according to their cultural heritage that was predominate during their childhood. It would help you to take a course in ethnicity and cultural heritages. I do believe it will assist you with your understanding of ethnic culture. So when you choose to comment about such matters, it will be from a place of knowledge instead of speculation.

          • Guest

            I have taken those courses already that’s why I know you’re just blowing smoke. Look at the US’s own native culture – people of ⅛th native american choose to identify as native american and that choice is even acknowledged by both the native governments and the US.

            I think you need to go back to those cultural classes you seem to have missed something.

          • Faithwalker

            We are not debating the issue of Native Americans. You attempted to speak to the African American cultural experience, in which it shows you nothing about. You must have missed the chapter on African American history and is probably the reason why your response took the conversation off topic.

          • Guest

            Again, that you think that some races are ’special’ is one of the reasons all races are protected. You are the one thinking that race can’t be a choice when we know it can be, even with African Americans even if they had as little as 1/16th African American blood they could be treated as if they were actually ‘black’ whether they had previously known that fact or not.

            Face it, racial identity for many people is a choice, both theirs and others – and they are all equally as protected what ever they decide, that’s why we have civil rights laws – to protect the individuals right to have any of these qualities and still be treated by equally with those of different qualities.

            You are the one that took the topic off stream and said nothing to show that racial identity isn’t a choice for some people. Since you obviously can’t, just drop it since it is, as you point out, off topic. We have our civil rights whether they are chosen or innate.

          • Faithwalker

            First of all I never said that “some races are special.” Where did you read that in my comment. I just pointed out the truth and reality as it stands based upon an African American perspective.

            Btw, every human being on this earth is special and was created by God.

            To address your comment about someone choosing their race… is absolutely ludicrous. The DNA that was created and designed by God for every species and organism on the planet dictates our biological make-up, not wishful thinking.

            Okay…let me make it plain. Just because you “THINK or DESIRE” to be someone other who you were created to be does not make it so.This is why there are so many in the world today who suffer with identity confusion, why….because they do not see themselves through the lens of Biblical truths. Accepting the reality of your God ordained identity my friend through the lens of Biblical truth is the only truth of the day,

          • Guest

            Ah but that isn’t “the truth and reality”. The truth is that any mixed race person can choose which race they identify with. The reality is that people will pigeon hole someone into a racial category that isn’t the one they choose. The ‘truth and reality’ is that civil rights are protected regardless of either personal choice or the choice of others, or even if there is no choice at all.

            But then you think there is ‘racial’ DNA. Sorry, the ‘truth’ is there is no such thing as ‘race’ to begin with – there is far more variation within any racial group than there is between them and nothing distinctive about any in an absolute sense.

            And since you don’t even understand ‘think or desire’ most certainly is how many civil rights categories are reached, and that is why we protect them regardless of how the individual got there – innate, choice, people mistakenly thinking they are one thing when they are another, they are all protected.

            And since God designed the way our gender identity and even our sexuality so that there could be people of all combinations I am content to agreeing with His plan and design. There are other animals where He actually divided the male from the female, in humans He chose to put all the genetic information to be masculine or feminine, male or female, in each and every one of us.

            Again, a Christian doesn’t fret about it at all since we walk in the next world and in that world there will be no marry or marriage, and we will all be the same, neither male nor female. Focusing on ‘this world only’ problems is a fool’s choice and be like obsessing about whether polyester and cotton constitute ‘two fiber cloth’ or not.

          • Faithwalker

            Again, you took my DNA comment totally out of context. This conversation is not centered on race, it is centered in the reality that our identities need to be through the life saving grace, mercy and the power of Jesus Christ. Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior into your life and heart? If not I encourage you to do so today. There is no identity confusion about who you are when you have allowed Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior. This is the main message of this conversation.

            Hebrews 3:15
            As it is said, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

            Revelation 1:5
            and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

          • Guest

            No I used your comment in the context it was written – a superstitious one that has nothing to do with God or Christianity.

            And yes I am a Christian and have accepted God’s undeserved gift of Grace and the Spirit. And these discernments make it obvious that anyone obsessing about transgender in bathrooms or selling cupcakes is woefully lacking in the fruits of the Spirit and ignoring the New Covenant. So are we to kowtow to Christians obsessed with this world, or are we to show them that what they are fretting about isn’t even where they are supposed to be focusing their attention and efforts?

          • Faithwalker

            You proclaim Christianity, but deny creation and adhere to the tenets of evolution. May you have an encounter with the Holy Spirit who is able to bring us all into God’s truth.

          • Guest

            Evolution is common sense, things vary through generations and the best variation is the one that replaces the less competitive. It’s God’s design and like all of them very practical and consistent with His will. It is the Spirit that allows Chrisitan sto discern that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “other types of sinful lifestyles, whether be it homosexuality,
            identifying as an atheist, agnostic, skeptic or a practicing occultist
            etc.”

            Really? Merely being an agnostic or skeptic is as “sinful” as being homosexual?

        • lee metzger

          Great point FW.

        • JoeNCA

          But they can stop dating people of a certain race, just like you are asking people to stop dating people of a certain gender.

          Question: Does someone who does do that “leave the interracial lifestyle”?

          • Faithwalker

            Your question and statement makes absolutely no sense.

          • JoeNCA

            Of course it does. Didn’t you choose your spouse, and they have a particular gender and race? Couldn’t you pick someone with a different gender or race?

          • Faithwalker

            Stay on topic. .the discussion is based on one’s sexualty not race or gender which are determined by ones DNA. So your comparisons are not analgous.

          • JoeNCA

            You’ve actually made my point. No one has ever even attempted to say one’s racial preferences is some “sexuality”, that one is born attracted to someone of a particular race.

            Yes race and gender are determined by one’s DNA.

            One’s sexual partner is not.

            What race or gender we choose to marry is completely a choice.

            So it’s completely analogous.

        • ewe …

          Actually the NAACP finds you offensive. They state in writing that although the circumstances of discrimination may be different the principles remain the same. That makes you the misinformed uniformed ill informed one in the dialogue.

          • Faithwalker

            Well to inform you, the NAACP was paid by the homosexual radical movement to agree with the homosexual agenda. Let me inform you the NAACP does not speak for the majority of the black community, Specifically, the black Christians who are born again through the blood of Jesus Christ. The NAACP sold out the black community after Dr. Martin Luther King was murdered. Therefore, your argument is moot.

          • ewe …

            1) evangelicals are crazy nut jobs who have to be continuously forced to mind their own business and stay out of the personal lives of lgbtq people and 2) you’re statement about the NAACP is a lie inside your own head. Cite your source when you go ballistic with that ridiculous nonsense about a homosexual radical movement. If you don’t like people seeking equality that’s TOUGH for you. Nobody cares. In conclusion Jesus the Christ was an openly gay man murdered by psychopaths like the religious right such as yourself.

          • Faithwalker

            What a unhappy and miserable person you seem to be. You need deliverance from the demons that are tormenting you. May God have mercy on your soul.

          • ewe …

            Don’t bother attempting to back up your previous BS you were confronted about. Low class low lives like you avoid the topic and turn it into a mud fest. I can keep up with you and them some. Get something through your vile thick head. You are a grotesque simple minded hypocrite and gay people will fight you and filth like you until your pastors tell you to pipe down as soon as the courts strip your religious temples from being non profits for repeated offenses of discrimination against other Americans. You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to lgbt issues and you should wake up and face that fact when someone who lives it 24/7 tells you that your ridiculous ideas are not at all accurate simply because you spend three minutes of your day pontificating about people you know nothing about. It is you who is a miserable sinner going straight to Hades for your ghastly treatment of fellow human beings. Now get lost. You’re a nuisance, a pest and a disgraceful hypocrite.

        • Nofun

          Its civil rights and religious bigotry. Back in the day Christians ran with the story that black people were under the curse of Ham as per the bible story so they were completely justified in not doing business with them.

          • Faithwalker

            Ignorance affects all who are blinded by the darkness of their minds.

        • Nofun

          Michael Jackson stopped being black. If you really loved Jesus you would too.

          • Faithwalker

            What a childish statement.

      • BarkingDawg

        Stop talking sense.

      • plsinatra

        This is way more than just a ‘religious’ issue, it is a basic freedom and liberty issue. It has been clearly stated that this business (and all of the others involved in these issues) NEVER refused service to homosexuals, but only declined to do jobs involving homosexual ‘weddings’. If you can’t see the difference, and if you really think that the gov’t should be in the business of telling private citizens whom they must serve and with whom they must associate, then quite frankly you have absolutely no right whatsoever to call yourself an American. If you think that a Christian business owner should be forced to do a job that goes against their beliefs or conscience, then you had better be prepared to stand up for the rights of the Klan to force a black business owner to cater to them, or for a Jewish family to force a Muslim business owner to cater a bar mitzvah. Would you force a homosexual business owner to cater to a Christian pro-family rally?
        It’s time to stop whining about these *perceived* rights to force others to do your bidding, and start standing up for the actual Constitution which protects ALL of us from this kind of gov’t overreach and intrusion into our private affairs.

      • Oboehner

        Black is a race, gay is a choice.

        • ewe …

          That only can mean that you are gay and choosing not to be? You don’t get it both ways.,

          • Oboehner

            There is no two ways about it.

          • ewe …

            Agreed

    • TheKingOfRhye

      What is so “diabolical, fascist, and tyrannical” about wanting the freedom to be served by any public business without having to wonder if the owners condone your sexual orientation?

      And as for why LGBT people in this country are making more noise about discrimination by Christians than by Muslims? 70% of the country are Christians, less than one percent are Muslims.

      • lee metzger

        They are served by any public business. The difference is there are services that are above the norm in degree, and so “discrimination” is permitted. Nightclubs don’t have to allow everyone in the door, and so too Christian businesses that cater should be able to choose which weddings they want to cater and which ones they don’t. There is literally no difference in that example. As for your last point, totally unconvincing. There are plenty of muslim businesses gays could go after but they don’t. Why? Are Muslims protected “space,” since they’re a pet liberal cause? It appears so. That they don’t force themselves on muslim businesses again points to their total hypocrisy in this debate.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Okay….to be honest, personally I haven’t even heard of an instance of a Muslim-owned business in America being known for discriminating against gays. Do you know of one? If there is, I would hope they get just as much backlash from the LGBT community and their allies as any Christian business has.

          • lee metzger

            Actually I do. There was a video made of a man who “posed” as a gay and went to a muslim bakery in a michigan town. He asked the baker to do a cake for his wedding, and the man refused. The video should still be on youtube. No doubt you’ve never heard of an instance of this happening among Muslim-owned businesses, because gays refuse to target them. The irony is rich. There is simply no place whatsoever in Islam for homosexuality on ANY level, yet gays refuse to target their businesses, and the media continues to slobber over Muslims like they’re God’s gift ot the planet.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            In Michigan you can legaly discriminate against homosexuals.

          • Nofun

            That makes jesus smile.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Also though, it might just have a little something to do with how there’s like 70 times more Christians than Muslims in this country.

          • acontraryview

            “He asked the baker to do a cake for his wedding, and the man refused.”

            Sexual orientation is not a covered category in the location where that video was made. There would be no basis for a lawsuit against that business, nor a business owned by a Christian in the same city. All that video showed was that something some Muslims and some Christians have in common is a desire to not make cakes for a same-gender wedding.

          • gizmo23

            So if gays targeted Muslims as well as Christians you would be happy?

          • Michael C

            …like I already told you, in an interview with Christopher Agee of Western Journalism, that guy was quoted saying “no one said ‘No, we won’t do it.’”

            …besides the fact that, as acontraryview has said, Michigan doesn’t allows businesses to discriminate against gay people in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

            …besides the fact that, as TheKingOfRhye has said, the vast majority of Americans are Christian. There are more gay people than Muslims in the U.S. Try walking into every bakery within twenty miles of your home. Count how many of the owners are Christian versus how many are Muslim.

          • JoeNCA

            And what wasn’t said is those bakeries weren’t discriminating. What was edited out (and a local followed up with them) is that those bakeries don’t bake wedding cakes… FOR ANYONE. They don’t do wedding cakes at all.

            One of them doesn’t even bake cakes of any kind! If you look in the background, there’s nothing but bread!

            So there is no discrimination because they are not withholding a service from gay people they gleefully serve to straight people. Because they don’t bake wedding cakes FOR ANYONE.

          • Nofun

            They aren’t targeted … christians are not the victims here.

        • acontraryview

          “The difference is there are services that are above the norm in degree”

          How so? A wedding cake is a wedding cake. There is nothing “above the norm” about a wedding cake for a wedding of two people of the same gender.

          “Nightclubs don’t have to allow everyone in the door”

          Nightclubs, like all businesses, are not allowed to discriminate on who they allow to enter in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

          “Christian businesses that cater should be able to choose which weddings they want to cater and which ones they don’t.”

          If you believe that should be the case, then you should be working to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

          “There are plenty of muslim businesses gays could go after but they don’t.”

          Are you aware of any instances where a business owned by Muslims has refused services in a way which violates anti-discrimination laws?

        • JoeNCA

          Just like racist restaurant owners gleefully served blacks for take out, but would not provide them eat in service as that was reserved for whites.

          Just like homophobic bakers gleefully serve gay people other products, but would not provide them wedding service as that is reserved for straights.

        • Nofun

          There is no difference between a wedding job and any other job.

          There are no christian businesses. Christians can own businesses as long as they follow the laws like everyone else and don’t discriminate based on bigotry.

          Its funny how they serve all the other sinful people isn’t it: divorcees, gluttons, atheists….

    • Nofun

      Why would any gay person want that? They just want to be treated like everyone else.

      If can’t provide your services without employing religious bigotry don’t go into business.

    • 1Truth1

      Gay is NOT a choice. Religion and bigotry IS a choice.

      • lee metzger

        Wrong. Gayness is an orientation, and that is NOT the same thing as a choice. ALL behavior is a choice, and that’s just basic psychology.

        • 1Truth1

          So you chose your straight orientation? When was that? At what age?

        • JoeNCA

          Just like left handedness is a choice, since that is the manifestation of an orientation?

        • Nofun

          Sexuality is innate as science tells us.

      • Thisoldspouse

        Religion and its free expression is explicitly listed as a natural constitutional right. Queerdom, not so much.

        • Guest

          But thinking God blesses weddings regardless of the couple’s sexes is religious belief and that means same sex weddings are reasonable expression of that belief.

          That’s why these cases are lost – everyone has a right to religious freedom, even the customers that think the same sexes can marry. The idea there is a right to religious discrimination in a public offer would undermine everyone’s religious freedom catastrophically – you aren’t going to see any court acknowledge such a right in a nation where everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

          • Thisoldspouse

            You don’t get it. You are claiming that one person’s religious beliefs be able to completely DOMINATE another’s beliefs when it comes to that other person’s personal property, labor, and SPEECH. Even Obama’s pick for EEOC Commission, Chai Feldblum, explicitly stated that religious liberty must lose in most instances when it comes into conflict with the wishes of sexual perversion.

            That is the antithesis of religious liberty.

        • 1Truth1

          Gay people are allowed to be gay. Just like Christian conservative idiots are allowed to be judgemental a-holes. Everyone is covered by the constitution. Don’t like it? Too bad. Marriage equality!!! YES!!

          • Thisoldspouse

            This is not a matter of allowing “gay” people to be “gay,” moron. It is a matter of property right, freedom to associate without government coercion, and freedom from involuntary servitude. That you don’t believe in these three freedoms, perhaps you don’t belong in this country. Communism would better suit you.

          • 1Truth1

            Thank you. You are correct. Government should stay out of our personal lives. If you, however, own a PUBLIC business, then you serve the entire public, not just who you choose. If you don’t like the law as it is, then work towards changing it. For now, it is against the law to discriminate. Break the law and you suffer the consequences. Period.

        • Nofun

          Your religious freedom ends when it starts to hurt others.

          • Thisoldspouse

            No one has ever been “harmed” by being refused a fake wedding cake.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          What about the freedom of religion of people whose religions say “queerdom” is just fine? (which even includes quite a few Christian denominations…and don’t tell me they’re not “true Christians”, either, because that just doesn’t matter, freedom of religion still applies to them if they are or not)

    • David & Jonathan

      Christian morality?
      Don’t you know that the bible is the most pro-gay book on this world? It is only pagan institutions like the Roman Catholic church that tell the world that homosexuality is against their belief. But that has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, the bible or anything else from the gospel.

      • lee metzger

        Wrong. As the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 describing the sins new converts had indulged in, homosexuality being one of those sins, “Such, WERE some of you.” It’s not normal to leave the normative use of a function. The body was made for opposite sex relationships. The penis was made for the vagina, not for the anus. One was made for penetration, the other is an exit port for sewage waste. That someone insists on reversing the process is proof of a disconnect with reality and the Bible in no way, shape or form supports that psychosis.

        • David & Jonathan

          Factually wrong:
          Paul his list didn’t include homosexuality. That is a current day translation that only proves the prejudice of the translator.

          First of all, Paul didn’t write the letter in English. He wrote the letter in Greek. And the word you are referring to is the word Arsenokoites, which literally translated “man bed”, with the word bed in a sexual connotation. As this word was never used before, there is no clear understanding of what it actually means. Current day greek dictionaries explain it as meaning masturbators.

          It was the translators of the KJV that translated it for you into english. It is clear that they also didn’t understand what the word Arsenokoites means. If they thought it would mean homosexuals (current day word) they would have used the word Sodomite, as this word was already in use to describe homosexuals since 390 After Christ. Just as Paul would have used the word “paiderasste” if he wanted to refer to homosexuals. Instead the translators came with the vague translation “Abusers of themselves with mankind”.

          As you are probably more familiar with the english version, lets have a look at what it says…

          First of all, why do you assume that the people that are the “abusers of themselves” are male? That can not be deduced from the text. Secondly, the word “Mankind” is used to refer to the human species, which includes male and female.

          And third of all, there is the word abuse, which points to something sexual without consent.

          Basically, your english version can mean anything.

          That you believe it to be about homosexuality is only proving your prejudice, as it is not supported by the text. Not in English, and certainly not in the original Greek.

          So there is not a single point of evidence that Paul was referring to homosexuality.

          Your interpretation, Is just the flavor of the day, with no more substantiation than past interpretations such as masturbators, male prostitutes (for women), rapists, etc.

        • Nofun

          Why not ignore the anti-gay bits like you ignore other bits like forcing women to marry their rapists, killing those who work on the Sabbath, murdering you rebellious children etc.

    • JoeNCA

      “that would allow Christian businesses to opt out of providing services for an event that they sincerely consider to be a radical departure from God’s forever design for human relationships.”

      You mean remarriages? Hahah! Just kidding! Christ ACTUALLY talks about that one. Why would Christians follow the words of Christ?

      • lee metzger

        Remarriage is fine if divorces were biblical. If they were NOT, then the same opt out is imperative for the Christian business. And opting out is no problem for a prospective couple. There are multitudes of businesses that offer the same services.

        • JoeNCA

          And yet they never ask if it is “biblical”, ensuring they for sure have made cakes for weddings that are not “biblical”.

    • Thisoldspouse

      It’s not even about cake or flowers, really. It’s about forcing approval, or at least the appearance of approval. If you doubt this, let a Christian business owner agree to sell them a product, but under loud, publicly obvious disapproval, and you’ll find out that it’s not about the cake, which is just another homo-pervert lie.

      A jeweler in Canada sold rings to two lesbians for their “wedding,” but the lesbians later found out about an inconspicuous sign on the jeweler’s premises supporting man/woman marriage, and went ballistic, demanding refunds (for custom items). This is miles away from “live and let live” as the fake slogan always goes.

    • ewe …

      You’re a crackpot in too many ways to mention.

    • ewe …

      Is this the same white aryan named metzger?

    • qcubed

      You are a prime example of the flawed thinking and lack of critical and logical thought that leads to the idea that ‘Christstain values’ are under attack in America.
      Absolutely pathetic, by the way, but you get zero sympathy from me.

    • glenbo

      >”they can enact legislation that would allow Christian
      businesses to opt out of providing services for an event”<

      What you are asking for is legalizing discrimination. Ain’t
      gonna happen just because you don’t know how to abide by your own bibles.

      How about so-called “Christian” business owners opt out of
      the wedding business altogether and find a different line of work that doesn’t
      upset their “relationship” with their pretend non-existent invisible imaginary
      god?

      True Christians never discriminate.

      • lee metzger

        Discrimination occurs all the time. Slobs can’t walk into any restaurant they want to. Nightclubs only allow in certain people. If you don’t fit the “look” they want, you’ll have to go clubbing elsewhere. In answer to your find another line of work category, how about stop shutting down Christian businesses just because you insist on living life in the Twilight Zone? And true Christians don’t discriminate, they serve gays in normative business transactions just like they do anybody else. But expecting them to participate in an event that normal people find repugnant and disgusting is asking them to take a step too far. TOO BAD if you don’t get that.

        • glenbo

          >” Slobs can’t walk into any restaurant they want to”” how about stop shutting down Christian businesses”” normal people find repugnant and disgusting”<

          Yikes!

          You don’t know a single gay person.

          I know many.

          How sad that so many people judge others only by what they do with their genitalia in the privacy of their bedrooms.

          Such closed mindedness.

          • lee metzger

            Oh, so discrimination on the basis of sexual choice is different than discrimination on the basis of looks, dress or other criteria? I don’t think so. The effect is the same. Entrance DENIED. That’s discrimination, no matter how you look at it, yet only Christians are the bigots. Merely proves your own bigotry towards Christians. And you’re so full of fallacious comments, it’s not worth debating with you. Case in point. Sweetcakes “hate” gay people because they refuse to make them a cake for their wedding. Yet for all other normative situations, they made them for gay people. If they hated gays, as you FALSELY charge they do, they would simply have kicked them out of the shop everytime one walked into it. I know you all think you’re going to intimidate and silence Christians into submission with your own hate speech and offensive language describing them, but you’re not. We’ve got you all figured out, and by the time this is over, you’re going to be sorry you took this approach.

          • glenbo

            >”Oh, so discrimination on the basis of sexual choice is
            different”” only Christians are the bigots”” Merely proves your own bigotry towards Christians.”” If they hated gays, as you FALSELY charge they do,
            they would simply have kicked them out of the shop everytime one walked into it.”” I know you all think you’re going to intimidate and
            silence Christians”” We’ve got you all figured out”<

            You are crying the “Us poor Christian victims” boo hoo card when your bigotry backfires.

            It’s Christians who are the judgmental bigots.

            I don’t judge anyone ONLY because they belong to a social demographic group.

            You obviously have and you are defending so-called phony “Christians” who have also.

            The business owners who got in trouble did so because of their own doing. If they made the damn cakes and flowers, NO harm would have befallen them. They are victims of religion that they improperly followed. They are NOT “victims” of gay people simply wanting equal rights that you seem to think are undeserved.

            It is by their own lawless arrogance, misunderstanding of
            the teachings of Jesus and childish stubbornness that they went out of business.

            I have 2 questions for you:

            1) Do you believe homosexual ATTRACTIONS are a choice?

            2) Why is religion constitutionally protected since religion
            and religious behavior is a choice?

          • lee metzger

            Um, did anybody ever tell you that you’re full of crap? No gay is denied normative business services. So get over yourself, and stop trying to act like you know what you’re talking about, because you don’t. So tell me, all knowing one? Why would anyone insist on forcing someone to provide services for their fictitious wedding when they know that person seriously doesn’t want to take part in it? What kind of nutbag would seriously take that approach? I wouldn’t want a photographer for my wedding who couldn’t smile when taking the pictures. I wouldn’t want someone to cater my wedding when it was clear that in their heart they couldn’t do it with joy on their face. See, it’s just like a PRO-gay member of parliament in England said. To paraphrase him, “the reality is its clear the gays aren’t really interested in contracting Christians for the services they’re going to court over. This is just the LGBT community’s way of rubbing the noses of Christians in the dirt.” And ya know what, know it all? The man is right, and you KNOW that too. So too bad if you refuse to accept the fact that the gays are the bigots here, not the Christians. Christians rightly believe that God designed only a man and woman for sexual intimacy. They rightly possess a firm conviction that homosexuality is totally the opposite to what God and nature intended (because it IS, and only an ignoramous could fail to see that). They rightly believe that the very thing that IS the identity of the homosexual, their SEXUAL choice, is immoral, and hey, 50% of black gay men will soon possess the HIV virus. I’d say that vindicates in a thundering manner the position the Christians take. So keep on building your straw men. They only prove your own hatred and bigotry towards Christians. Sorry, but your false charges don’t impress me. Your refusing to acknowledge the entire picture (that gays receive all normative services from Christians) doesn’t impress me. Sayonara, pal….

          • glenbo

            >”They rightly believe that the very thing that IS the
            identity of the homosexual, their SEXUAL choice, is immoral”<

            You didn’t answer my questions:

            1) Do you believe homosexual ATTRACTIONS (not behavior) are a choice?

            2) Why is religion constitutionally protected since religion

            and religious behavior is a choice?

            And I will add a third question:

            Are YOU, Lee Metzger, able to “choose” to have sex with someone of your same gender?

            If not, why?

    • John Dixon

      I certainly hope these God-fearing “Christian businesses” are holding up the entire “Word of God”! If not, then that would make them hypocrites, right?! If they are going to deny service to gay people (there are about six verses in the entire bible that seem to allude to gay sex), I certainly hope they are denying their services to those who are committing sins that the bible mentions about 250 times; those who have “set aside their wife” (divorce), those who are having affairs on their spouses (adultery), and those who having sex outside the bonds of marriage (fornication). How do you stay in business denying service to 90% of the population?! You don’t! Nowhere did Christ set this example! The only people He condemned were the self-righteous religious leaders and the the governmental officials who made life hard for the poor.

      The problem is the self-righteous “Christians” who want to make such a show of their “faith” (bigotry) pick and choose from the Bible; ignoring their own sins in the process. It’s easy to pick on gay people who constitute maybe 10% of the population instead of following what the Bible says to and about the majority of people. It’s a simple case of self-righteous bigotry and Bible-thumping bullying. I’m so sick of hearing “Christians” with their chant of “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” The truth is they never get around to “loving the sinner!”

      If more Christians heard the words of Christ, “Judge not that ye be not judged”, there would be far more love in the world and more people would be experiencing the love of Christ through those who truly follow Him.

      • lee metzger

        Christ, as God, is the author of scripture. It is HE who penned the words that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. It is he who authored the words in the New Testament against homosexual relationships. It is he who told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. Some of us aren’t so stupid, sir. We know that to gays equality really means “shut down ALL opposing voices” and we have no intention of backing down one bit. Gays, as all, can buy bread on store shelves, and order pizza in a restaurant. However, they CANNOT force their warped and perverted definition of marriage on us. As a friend of mine said, “Feelings aren’t facts. Perception is not reality. We are not responsible for your inability to comprehend the difference.” You’re so full of straw men, however, that i’m not too worried about persuading you. Nonsense with your characterization of self-righteous Christians. You have no clue of what it really means to “love the sinner.” I quoted above how Jesus loved sinners. He did so by telling them to “go and sin no more.” That’s LOVE. It is NOT love to affirm a psychotic disconnect with reality that has put tens of thousands of gay men in early graves and caused a nearly 50% suicide attempt rate in the transgender community. You can go your own way with your own bullying and false accusations against the Christian community.I’ll go mine, and I feel really comfortable in it. Why? Simple. It is God, not YOU, who decided to make us male and female. It is God, not YOU who created us with very particular female and male genitalia. Its is God who made male and female very different with differing gifts, emotional constitutions and attributes particular to each sex alone. Men can never receive from another man what they can from another woman. Women can never receive from each other what they can receive from a man. Stop denying nature, sir. Stop denying biological compatibility, sir. Stop telling God that HE made a mistake when He created us the way He did. Because of YOUR point of view, people are unnecessarily dying, taken captive by the lies and deceptions of a culture gone absolutely mad. That FACT alone tells you something is very, very wrong with your opinion on this. You talk about the love of Christ. I suggest you read everything HE said on the subject of love, marriage, etc, and I suggest you read everything that the Apostle Paul said as well, keeping in mind that Christ as God told Paul to put down in words exactly what He wanted him to say.

        • John Dixon

          Again, as typical, you didn’t (and won’t) answer, “where does it stop?” and what criteria you’re going to use to do business with the general public. The entire fundamentalist movement has decided that some sins are bigger than others and that same-sex unions (although formally supported, endorced, and performed by the church in ancient times) is one of the biggest sins of all.

          Your assertion that “God penned” is strange. The only account in scripture of God penning anything is the original tablets containing the ten commandments. Other than that, there is a reference in the New Testament that “scripture is given by inspiration. . .”; that’s not the same as what you assert that the Apostle Paul sat down and took dictation from the Almighty.

          All I’m saying is that if more Christians started dealing with their own demons they’d have their hands so full they wouldn’t have time to be sitting in judgement of everyone else. Jesus said to get the beam out of your own eye before trying to get the splinter out of someone else’. Those aren’t MY words nor (thankfully) yours either.

          Peace out!

          • lee metzger

            My assertion that “God penned” isn’t strange at all. 2 Tim 3:16 is clear who inspired every word of scripture…..”All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” That includes Genesis where God made the first declaration that a man would marry a WOMAN, right on through to the New Testament where that relationship between a man and woman alone is affirmed and brought up over and over again. As far as where to draw the line, that is easy. Normative services no one has an excuse not to provide. Even the bakers and florists that gays have so disingenuously and hypocritically sued provided such services to even gays. But a wedding is another event entirely. It is a sacred union and solemn union, and God emphatically declares it to be between a man and a woman ALONE. All other arrangements are abortions of marriage, especially what gays have in mind with throuples and other nonsensical arrangements. A gay wedding is a sin, period. It is not God’s intention whatsoever, and a Christian can have no part in it, and never WILL. However, if I personally knew that even a heterosexual couple was getting married and that one of them was unbiblically divorced, I wouldn’t do that wedding, either. I will not participate in someone elses’ sin, and that’s where the line is drawn. In THIS climate today, as a caterer, I’d probably contract out to church groups only. Churches I knew intimately, and churches I know would never give their blessing to any couple in which one of them (or both) had been involved in an unbiblical divorce. We are to grapple with our own demons, no denying that. However, that doesn’t mean we throw discernment out the window, and go along with anything, because, after all, we’re not supposed to judge. On the contrary, we ARE to exercise righteous judgment, and a gay wedding is one of those places. This is not even debatable for one who is in love with Jesus Christ.

    • ewe …

      You’re the one who thinks that. Next time you are on the road don’t get your gas from a foreigner. You are a prejudiced bigot.

    • ewe …

      Proof you are a closet homosexual telling other people how to feel.

      • Gary Metzger

        The oldest PC nonsense in the book. Way to affirm you have NO IDEA what to say after being exposed for ignorance that’s bordering on embarrassment. Go troll someone else, I’m done with you…..

        • ewe …

          You’re done period. Actually you never started. You’re a dense narrow minded brat. Please stay away. Your problems are deeply psychological. You hate yourself and try to have everyone hate others. Your split personality is even more psychotic. Crackpot.

        • ewe …

          Tramp

  • Peter Leh

    The
    point is do what you want from a business perspective… however if you serve one protected class
    of people you can’t deny the same service to another protected class of
    people.

    this is BUS 101

  • Peter Leh

    “The next thing, you know, they might be saying if you’re divorced you shouldn’t get a cupcake.”

    that is the logical continuance of action if indeed one is concerned their product is “participating in a sin”. Which in turn, imo, is evidence that they really don;t believe the argument they are making rather they are merely discriminating against homosexuals.

    If the argument is participating in “sin” then the business would be discriminating against a whole variety of people.

  • RWH

    I can see the discussions now if the so-called “Christians” get their way. Every time we go to buy a product, someone will be giving us a form asking us for our personal information and a reason why we want to buy the product. “Oh, you want to buy a washing machine? Well, I’m not going to sell you one because you will be washing bar mops, and I think that drinking is a sin.”

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Get these laws passed protecting people’s cherished prejudices, and these laws, like the two-edged sword, will turn around and cut them. People passed legislation to get Christian clubs in schools, and now the same laws are being used to get “gay” clubs in the same schools. In the bad old days, churches would proclaim boycotts to drive Jewish businesses out of town, and this was in the United States, not Nazi Germany or any other place. Knownothingism is still alive and well. Donald Trump is doing a great job tapping into these feelings. After all, society would be much better if only we were rid of X and Y groups of people.

    • Amos Moses

      “I can see the discussions now if the so-called “Christians” get their way. Every time we go to buy a product, someone will be giving us a form asking us for our personal information and a reason why we want to buy the product.”

      No one asked them for the most part. They volunteered the information. All they had to do was shut up and order. But their pride in their sin led them to do otherwise. It is not my duty to participate in their activity. Especially if they make their intentions known. No forms needed. They stupidly volunteered.

      If a guy wants to buy a hammer, and happens to volunteer he is going to use it to murder another, i will not sell it to him. No matter his “protected class”.

      • Peter Leh

        murder is not a protected class. 🙂

        but still… good to know you would not sell it. 🙂

        • Amos Moses

          Selling a hammer is not a problem, the use being made known creates the problem. Being homosexual is murder. Murder of self and partner as well as other things.

          • Nofun

            Don’t lie and demonize … jesus will burn you forever for your lies.

          • Amos Moses

            “Don’t lie and demonize ”

            Does 1 Corinthians 5 & 6 “demonize”?

            So did Jesus “demonize ” those He spoke to in Matthew 12:24-39 or Matthew 23:19-39?

            You do not know what you are talking about……………………

          • Amos Moses

            CDC: Half of Gay Black Men Will Be Diagnosed with HIV

          • Guest

            Yes, and love could greatly reduce that:

            Why Are There so Many Blacks With HIV?

            There are many ideas about why HIV in blacks is such a big problem. Factors like these are contributing to this growing epidemic:

            Poverty. African-Americans are more likely to be uninsured or publicly insured than whites. This can limit access to information, testing, and treatment for HIV and other diseases, and lead to higher rates of hospitalization. Dependence on drugs can increase the impact of financial difficulties. It can also lead to behaviors such as an exchange of sex for drugs, which increase the risk for HIV infection. In addition, women who are financially dependent may fall prey to power imbalances that can weaken their ability to protect themselves in sexual relationships.

            Injecting drug use. This increases the spread of HIV through blood, as well as leading to more risky sexual behavior.

            Sexually transmitted diseases. In 2010, 69% of all reported cases of gonorrhea, one of many sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), occurred among African-Americans. Having STDs increases the chances of also getting HIV.

            Lack of information. Many may be HIV positive and not know it, so they continue to spread the disease. In addition, distrust in governmental sources of information and research lingers due to the historic Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which exploited blacks without their knowledge.

            Stigma about HIV in blacks. Some people in the African-American community still mistakenly believe that HIV is a white, gay disease. This view may make it difficult to learn about or discuss their HIV status with others. Stigma may also silence men who have sex with men but don’t tell their women sex partners. This is often called being on the “down low.” Current studies may reveal just how much this practice contributes to the spread of HIV in blacks.

            -WebMD

          • Amos Moses

            “Yes, and love could greatly reduce that”

            Garbage. Love does not stop disease………

          • Guest

            You obviously didn’t read the article – reducing poverty, reducing or making safer IV drug abuse, advocating safer sex, keeping people informed, and looking at HIV as a disease, not a ‘stigma’ are all acts of love and would help these people.

            Oh but that’s right, you are thinking that helping these people do this would be enabling their ‘sin’, (always wonder when I hear someone claiming to be a Christian say that since they were just the same themselves and are no better than these.)

          • Amos Moses

            It is obviously not worth reading………..

          • Guest

            Obviously. I guess we are done here.

          • DanH

            They don’t like to talk about how AIDS is transmitted, for obvious reasons.

          • Nofun

            Yes, it seems we need to ban heterosexual sex in black communities due to that heterosexual disease chlamydia. After all being straight is just a lifestyle choice and can given up easily if disease is a problem right?

            CDC:
            “In 2013, the overall rate among blacks in the United States was 1,147.2 cases per 100,000 population. The rate of reported cases of chlamydia among black women was 5.8 times the rate among white women

            The chlamydia rate among black men was almost eight times the rate
            among white men.

            Rates of reported cases of chlamydia were highest for blacks aged 15–19 and 20–24 years in 2013.

            The chlamydia rate among black females aged 15–19 years was 6,907.6 cases per 100,000 females, which was five times the rate among white females in the same age group (1,383.3 per 100,000 females).

            The rate among black women aged 20–24 years was 4.1 times the rate among white women in the same age group

            The chlamydia rate among black men aged 20–24 years was 5.5 times the rate among white men of the same age group.

          • Amos Moses

            “Yes, it seems we need to ban heterosexual sex in black communities due to that heterosexual disease chlamydia.”

            Who said ban? Sorry, if you think a ….. sorry, 44% …..HIV rate is a good idea…… Then you hate homosexuals far more than any christian.

          • Nofun

            Still clinging to that bogus statistic.

          • Amos Moses

            Half of black men who are gay and a quarter of Latino gay men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetimes if current trends continue, according to a first-of-its-kind federal analysis released Tuesday.

            The findings present a stark reminder of the threat still posed by the AIDS virus 35 years after the illness was first detected, despite progress in treatment and prevention.

            “It was really a clarion call,” said Dawn Fukuda, director of the HIV/AIDS division at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, who heard the report presented at the international Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston. “These are numbers that are pretty astounding.”

            Boston Globe 2 days ago…….. So yes.

          • Nofun

            …”in their lifetimes” ……also a different question …..

            Also “if present trends continue” i.e. this is not the case now.

            All no worse than heterosexual black people with chlamydia.

          • Amos Moses

            How many people died of chlamydia and how many from AIDS?

            – Chlamydia caused 0.02% of all deaths worldwide in 2002 or 2 deaths per million people, not including deaths due to ectopic pregnancy.

            – Since the start of the epidemic an estimated 36 million [30 million – 42 million] people have died of AIDS-related illnesses.

            Yeah, almost the same thing………………………………..

          • Nofun

            Few die from aids these days as we have very good treatments.

            “In that year [2010] it [Chlamydia] resulted in about 1,200 deaths [globally] down from 1,500 in 1990.”

            Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, Abraham J, Adair T, Aggarwal R, Ahn SY; et al. (Dec 15, 2012). “Global and regional
            mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a
            systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.”. Lancet 380 (9859): 2095–128.

          • Amos Moses

            Self inflicted and still deadly. And still not a comparison to chlamydia.

          • Nofun

            They are both sexually transmitted diseases and you tell me that is a reason to give up the sexual orientation that it involves.

          • Amos Moses

            If early death is your wish, God says “So your will be done”.

          • Nofun

            That is a lie.
            CDC:
            “In 2014, 44% (19,540) of estimated new HIV diagnoses in the United States were among African Americans”

            Nothing like saying half of the gay black community has HIV.

          • Amos Moses

            Lets see……………. 44% ………………… 50% …………………… yeah not close ………….. RIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

          • Nofun

            It is a different question you dunce.

            Your figure comes from the question about ALL new HIV diagnoses not the % of black gay people with HIV.

          • mitchw7959

            Then you’d better call out the police and issue an all points bulletin for me and for my African American husband—because according to your beliefs, we’re notorious serial murderers, and pretty happy being so for the 19 years we’ve been together.

          • Amos Moses

            You are, according to scripture. Mans law is not at issue. But whether a christian participates in a crime against God/Christ is.

          • Guest

            Paul said that Corinthian Christians could do business with ‘those of this world’ that their sins are between them and God and not the Christian’s concern.

            Again, if these people think they can only sell their product to people with certain beliefs there are ways they can do that legally, what they can’t do is invite everyone to do business and then reject responding customers because they don’t have the ‘right’ beliefs about weddings or marriage.

          • Amos Moses

            We are not talking about just the sale of wares to non-believers. We are talking about the appearance of evil and participating in a corrupt enterprise that Paul also spoke against. Paul also said this to the Corinthian Christians:

            2 Corinthian 6 14-
            “Do not be bound together with unbelievers, for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness or what fellowship has light with darkness, or what harmony has Christ with Belial – ” or Satan – “or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?

            “For we are the temple of the living God, just as God said, `I will dwell in them, and walk among them, and I will be their God and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord, ‘and do not touch what is unclean and I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the Lord Almighty.’ Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

          • Guest

            And so you are saying what I am saying – if they can only be ‘bound’ with believers than making public offers of sale is a really stupid thing to do that in itself goes against their beliefs.

            As long as the business is making the offer to the public, knowing what that means in a country with a universal right to religious freedom, then the sin is theirs for making the offer in the first place.

          • Amos Moses

            “And so you are saying what I am saying”

            No, what you are saying is not what i am saying. It is not a sin to sell them anything,,,,,,,,,, until they make it known their intention of its use. And they did.

            We have no duty to assist anyone into sin and it is a sin to do so. If they kept their mouth shut,,, different story. They did not.

          • Guest

            Amos everyone in the United States has a constitutional right to ‘sin’ in your eyes – your view of holy law is for you alone not something you can require other to share or even respect.

            The universal right to religious freedom shields the customer of a public offer from any religious test the business owner might want to toss their way. The business owner knows this and so has to behave accordingly.

            Can’t sell hammers to people of all beliefs, then don’t make public offers of hammer sales.
            Can’t sell wedding venues to people of all beliefs, then don’t make public offers of wedding venues.

          • Amos Moses

            “everyone in the United States has a constitutional right to ‘sin’ in your eyes – your view of holy law is for you alone not something you can require other to share or even respect.”

            They do not have to share, nor do they have the right to make me part of theirs. You are wrong.

          • Guest

            No one is ‘making’ you if you offer hammers for sale – the choice to make a public offer of hammers was yours knowing full well what the laws are regulating such offers.

            Don’t offer something for sale your faith won’t let you sell as the law requires is the simple solution that those on your side ignore time and time again. An Amish-owned store selling cellphones can’t limit their sales to ‘English’ and can’t refuse to sell one to someone they know is Amish.

            Either they sell cellphones or they don’t regardless of the customer’s beliefs.
            Either the business sells wedding cupcakes or they don’t regardless of the customer’s beliefs.

          • Amos Moses

            If the customer makes his beliefs known,,, then HE has made it an issue…….. Why is that so hard to be understood… Stupidly, they in their pride, have made it known.

          • Guest

            In every one of these cases the customer hasn’t made their beliefs ‘known’ anymore than a Jewish man walking into a store with a yarmulke on. (research Scalia’s opinion on that). The business has ASKED what they advertised product will be used for, they should use the same ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy Paul suggested for those eating serving meat purchased after it was used in a pagan sacrifice and those eating meat at someone else’s house.

          • Amos Moses

            Selling a cake is not a sin. They have all made it known the purpose to which the items or venues would be used.

          • Guest

            And, as Katich says, then they should just sell the cake – as Paul made clear whatever they use if for, sinful or not, is between them and God and not the seller’s concern.

            Again, they either sell cupcakes to the public legally or they don’t – pick one.

          • Amos Moses

            ” Paul made clear whatever they use if for, sinful or not”

            No, he did not make that clear…….

          • Guest

            No, he did. The Corinthians Christians were trying to avoid doing business with ‘those of this world’, i.e. sinners, in the city with the largest temple to Aphrodite in the Empire, filled with tourists coming to town for the specific purpose of engaging in pagan sacrifices and rituals there. Any Christian merchant selling virtually anything knew that the lion’s share of that sold to out of owners was ending up in those same pagan ceremonies. What Paul said was specifically for them, telling them it was ok.

          • Amos Moses

            You had better reread those passages.

          • Guest

            I’ve read them many times – their meaning hasn’t changed. Paul even mentions they had misinterpreted his previous letter (which God chose to wipe from history so it wouldn’t be included in the Bible) and that he didn’t mean what you and yours would like it to mean.

            What those of this world do is between them and God, you can sell them cupcakes for an altar or their wedding, or to use in a cupcake fight – any sin involved is between them and God, and not the Christian’s concern.

          • Amos Moses

            “I’ve read them many times – their meaning hasn’t changed. ”

            Then you do not understand what you are reading.

          • Guest

            No, I understand them very well – as you have shown it is your understanding that is flawed.

            We as Christians are supposed to help our superstitious brethren even if that means giving up something we know isn’t proscribed because they erroneously think it is and our using it would make them stumble.

            We as Christians are also allowed to have dealings with those of this world even if what they buy is going to be used for empty pagan ritual – because that’s all it is. And whatever they do with their purchase any sin that might lead to is between them and God and not ours to judge.

          • Amos Moses

            Never said we could not sell to them. But again, if they make their intentions known, NO SALE.

          • Guest

            And in a country where they have a constitutional right to their ‘intentions’ the choice for those that are driven to religiously discriminate is to not offer things they know they won’t sell legally.

            Back to the simple solution – can’t sell something to the public as the law requires don’t sell it to the public. Simple as that.

          • Amos Moses

            “And in a country where they have a constitutional right to their ‘intentions’ ”

            There is no right to intend to commit a crime……………..

          • Guest

            And since having a wedding isn’t criminal under any circumstance, it is at most empty pagan ritual, you are supporting me.

          • Amos Moses

            Having a homosexual “wedding” is a crime, AGAINST GOD/CHRIST.

          • Guest

            No more than sacrificing meat on an idol’s altar. It is empty ritual at worst. And every customer has a right to not share the beliefs of the business owner making a public offer.

            Again, you think its a sin to sell cupcakes as the law requires then don’t sell cupcakes, problem solved.

          • Amos Moses

            “No more than sacrificing meat on an idol’s altar.”

            You are right, and that is a sin. By scripture.

          • Guest

            No, Paul said it was an empty ritual, that it changes the meat in no regard.

          • Amos Moses

            It is still a sin to sacrifice it. When Christ said “It is finished” He meant all sacrifice of animals for the forgiveness of sin. It is an affront to His sacrifice for us.

            Does it change the meat? No. Can we eat it? Yes. But if the server/host makes a point of it being sacrificed to an idol? NO! We do not.

          • Guest

            No, we most certainly can. It is only if you think you can’t eat it you will refrain, and all that are brethren will defer to the needs of the superstitious. Again, its common sense, not a magical incantation. Read the whole story – in a world without the superstitious the issue would never even come up.

          • Amos Moses

            But we do not live in that world and it is not superstitious………….. it is scripture.

          • Guest

            No, there is nothing wrong with meat that has been on an altar – its ok for anyone to eat, it is their superstition that limits them.

          • Amos Moses

            Did i say different?

          • Guest

            Ah we are in agreement then – open red herring pickled.

          • Amos Moses

            “Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” …Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.”

            — 1 Corinthians 10:7 & 14

          • Guest

            And no one will ever make you engage in idolatry that doesn’t mean you can’t sell to them.

          • Amos Moses

            1 Corinthians

            10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

            10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

            10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

            10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

            10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

            10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

            10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

            10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

          • Guest

            That means if you think that two people of the same sex can’t marry don’t marry someone of the same sex.

            Doesn’t say you can’t sell them cupcakes.

          • Amos Moses

            “That means if you think that two people of the same sex can’t marry don’t marry someone of the same sex.”

            No, it means it is not a marriage and we do not have any authority to redefine what God has already defined.

            But keep swinging. So far you are whiffing.

          • Nofun

            God doesn’t get a say as he is a faith construct and thus not real.

            Marriage predates Christianity.

          • Amos Moses

            No, it is Gods construct. But i get it that you don’t……………get it.

          • Nofun

            Any evidence of this god outside of a book?

            Even tribes that never seen civilization have marriage ceremonies …in no way does Christianity own marriage.

          • Amos Moses

            God owns it. We do not. We have no authority to redefine it.

            Got any science outside of a book? Or anything else?

            Books are how knowledge is transmitted….. or did you miss that class? Or the book?

          • Guest

            Again the hard part for you to understand, everyone has a right in this country to not share your beliefs.

            No need to redefine, there is no male or female in the body of Christ couples of any sex combination, couples marry regardless the sexes involved.

            You are free to disagree but since marriage is an of this world thing it makes not much different either way.

          • Amos Moses

            “No need to redefine, there is no male or female in the body of Christ couples of any sex combination, couples marry regardless the sexes involved.”

            Misapplying scripture does not bolster your case. In fact, it destroys it. Good job of that.

          • Nofun

            God gets jealous, hey. He creates universes but he wants tiny creatures on one planet to worship him. He is kind of needy.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes, he gets jealous. Scripture says so……. So what?

          • Nofun

            He seems kind of childish.

          • Amos Moses

            “God doesn’t get a say as he is a faith construct and thus not real.”
            “He seems kind of childish.”

            So what do you care?

          • Nofun

            Why would you worship such a childish entity?

          • Amos Moses

            That is your idea, not mine.

          • Amos Moses

            “between them and God and not ours to judge.”

            It is all ours to judge………………………righteously.

          • Guest

            Take it up with God and Paul. But that’s been obvious from the start – you are going to belief whatever you want no matter what scripture says.

          • Amos Moses

            Scriptures on judging

            Matthew 7 Read the WHOLE chapter

            Matthew 18:15

            John 7:24

            2 Timothy 3:16

            1 Corinthians 5 & 6

            1 Corinthians 2:15

            Proverbs 27:5, Proverbs 31:9

          • Guest

            Yes, we can judge those with in the church but

            Matthew 7 – and is what I’ve been trying to teach you. Those obsessed with cupcakes show no fruits of the Spirit, they are as barren of them as the thorns and thistles.
            John 7:24 about following the spirit of the law and not getting bound in legalism. That’s what I have advised you from the start.
            1 Corinthians 5:12-13 make it clear God judges those without, not us.
            1 Corinthian 6 is about those within the church, not without.
            2 Timothy 3:16 is why I am correcting you.
            1 Corinthians 2:15 is about discernment and again what I am doing with you,
            Proverbs 27:5 is about hiding our feelings – it was supposed to be a shocking, not a prescription.
            Proverbs 31:9 again, instructions to Hebrews to behave righteously,, doesn’t help your case at all. Just as Matthew gave up collecting taxes when he was saved so would any Christian business owner not offer things for sale they couldn’t sell as the law requires. Running a business illegally was an abomination to the Hebrews, it is no less so today.

          • Amos Moses

            Acts

            15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

            15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

          • Guest

            Paul talking about their ministry to Jews during negotiations with those in Jerusalem. 1 Corinthians 8 gives us God’s word through Paul. beef that ends up on a pagan altar, cupcakes at a wedding table after a marriage – pagan or not, is just fine to eat and provide.

          • Amos Moses

            Never said they were not, until it becomes a matter of pride for the server. Then it is. Then we are to use it to point to Christ. And NOT eat it.

          • Guest

            No, you mis read. If no one in the group is superstitious they can eat the meat no matter where it comes from and if they know it or not. You don’t eat it if it will lead the superstitious astray, that’s the lesson.

          • Amos Moses

            We can eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not when the host makes it known that it is, as an opportunity to teach the gospel to them.

            Same for the sale of an item we know is to be used for a nefarious purpose. That is what the passage is saying.

          • Guest

            No, actually you can eat it regardless if you know or not, Paul made that clear – no sin is involved. The issue is for Christians who can’t understand that more reasonable people should accommodate their less aware brethren.

            Has nothing to do with people of this world since it is talking about how Christians deal with Christians. What it does say is there is no sin in eating the mean for anyone.

          • Amos Moses

            You are not scriptural:

            10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

            10:28 But if any man say unto you,
            >>>>>>This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: <<<<<<<
            for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

            10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

            We are not to indulge if it cause another to stumble……………………

          • Guest

            And see, you have just repeated what I said but don’t understand it. This is common sense, not a magical formula. Paul said that there is no sin in eating the meat but for the good of others who might erroneously think it is wrong we will give up something we don’t really care about – the meat – for the sake of something we do – easing their path to salvation. And Paul was clear you could do that by not eating the meat or by them just not asking questions they don’t want to know the answer to – ‘don’t ask don’t tell’. And this is all about Christians dealing with Christians, a Christian can sell meat to those of this world no matter where they got it from or what they are going to use it for – their sins are between them and God.

          • Amos Moses

            “And this is all about Christians dealing with Christians, a Christian can sell meat to those of this world no matter where they got it from or what they are going to use it for – their sins are between them and God.”

            And if we cause them to stumble, by going along with their sin, it is between us and God/Christ….. So no, if they make it known of their nefarious intention, sorry, NO SALE.

          • Guest

            ‘Cause’ those of this world to ‘stumble’? They can’t stumble, they aren’t even in the race. Everyone has a God-given right to NOT be a Christian, doubly so in this here United States of America. Jesus said our task is to reap the harvest of the ripened fruit, it isn’t by our effort that it ripens only that we are there to collect those we can.

            Again, you can’t sell something to people of all beliefs then that can’t be discriminatorily offered to the public here in the United States. Need to sell something to just the ‘right’ people then it needs to be as a private club or non-profit who use their right to association to find the ‘right’ people first and then make just them the offer of sale.

          • Amos Moses

            “Everyone has a God-given right to NOT be a Christian, doubly so in this here United States of America.”

            Again, not scriptural…………….

          • Guest

            Actually yes it is from Adam and Eve forward all have had a choice. No one comes to Christ without making a choice to do so.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry, again, not scriptural. There are only two types of religion. One is where Christ did everything for us from our birth to our salvation to our death. Christ did it ALL. For us. We need do nothing but hear His word and hear His voice, AS HIS.

            The other is where we do something, works based. Christianity IS NOT works based.

            “Making a choice”, something that is dependent on us, IS A WORK. OUR WORK. NOT CHRISTS WORK.

            We are not capable of choosing God/Christ. He chooses us, we do not choose Him. Never have, never will. We are all in rebellion to God/Christ.

            John 15:16, Ephesians 1:4, John 6:37, John 6:44, Romans 8:28-30, John 10:4,
            2 Thessalonians 2:13, Matthew 22:1-14, Matthew 22:14, Ephesians 2:10, Ephesians 1:11,
            1 Peter 2:9, Deuteronomy 30:1-8, Deuteronomy 14:2, Deuteronomy 7:6

          • Guest

            Ah but those who are filled with the Spirit are compelled to do works by the Spirit’s very nature. Works are a consequence of being filled with the Spirit, and felling no desire to do them an excellent litmus for those who say ‘Lord Lord’ but are bereft of it.

          • Amos Moses

            ” Works are a consequence of being filled with the Spirit, and felling no desire to do them an excellent litmus for those who say ‘Lord Lord’ but are bereft of it.”

            And that has nothing to do with whether you are saved or not. Good works do not save ANYONE. You do good works BECAUSE you are saved, but they do not save.

            God/Christ DO NOT need our good works. They are nothing to Him but dirty menstrual rags, according to scripture.

          • Guest

            And I never said they did – I was responding to your comment.

            Again, it seems you are dedicated to what I consider superstition, which is fine – The sin is in you doing something you think God has proscribed even if it hasn’t been.

            But your solution is again simple and obvious – if you can’t sell something as the law requires then don’t offer it for sale illegally. Thats the very simple Christian solution.

          • Amos Moses

            If a person believes it is a sin, whether it is or not, and they commit that act…….. It is a sin.

          • Guest

            Exactly – I just said that. We seem to be in agreement, but the one notable thing is you have never ever addressed the simple solution I’ve stated over and over again – you can’t sell something as the law requires respecting the customer’s right to religious freedom then don’t sell it.

            We can agree that avoids the entire problem, right?

          • Amos Moses

            “you can’t sell something as the law requires respecting the customer’s right to religious freedom then don’t sell it.”

            No, we do not agree. i agree you are wrong.

          • Guest

            So you think someone should be able to sell anything they want by any religious standard they want and apply religious tests to customers to see if they qualify to buy something?

            What country do you live in? Not America, that’s for sure.

          • Amos Moses

            ‘Merica. That is for sure. i have the religious freedom to do so. To sell or not sell. To whom or not. At my discretion. i do not need a form. i can choose to be ignorant of their desire to use it in any way they see fit.

            But they do not have the right to make me a part of their nefarious enterprises with my knowledge just as i cannot force them to be part of mine. Cuts both ways.

          • Guest

            Again, you wouldn’t make the offer knowing how the law requires things be sold in the first place.

            That’s why these cases lose – this isn’t some person walking up to a random door and asking who answer to make something for them. This is a business offering the public something to for sale, knowing that this advertising is considered the start of the business transaction – that the business is of willingly associating with the public, a public that every single member has a right to NOT share the religious beliefs of the owner and still do business with them.

            Again, can’t sell something as the law requires don’t offer it for sale.

          • Amos Moses

            Oh, i see your error. You think i care if they lost.

            i do not.

          • Guest

            Oh ok, then you don’t care if they are breaking the law or found guilty of breaking the law and fined. Great, we are in total agreement then on the results.

            The only issue to discuss is about how they could obey their conscience and the law but that is no interest to you – so I guess we are done, right?

          • Amos Moses

            So, if the founders believed what you believe,,,,,,, then this would still be a colony of GB…… all wars have losses… SO WHAT?

          • Nofun

            Were the founders required to bake a cake for a gay wedding by Great Britain?

          • Amos Moses

            Which one was a baker?

          • Nofun

            Thomas Baker …. he made waffles at the first thanksgiving … George Washington and Jesus even fed the waffles to their very own Raptors they rode to Sunday School on.

          • Amos Moses

            You are funny….. don’t give up your day job though………………..

            A comedian’s popularity is fleeting. His success has the life expectancy of a small boy who is about to look into a gas tank with a lighted match.

          • Amos Moses

            “The Corinthians Christians were trying to avoid doing business ”

            This is absolutely WRONG. They thought they could be part of God/Christs table and still eat at the table of devils. THEY WERE WRONG………………. and Paul told them so……

          • Guest

            Again, who has invited anyone to their table? Not the customers – in no case was anyone from the business offered to join the party. You seem to continually confuse what Christians are allowed to do with Christians and what they are allowed to do with people of this world.

          • Amos Moses

            No confusion at all. We are to spread the gospel TO ALL EARS. To take every opportunity to do so. Faith comes through hearing, and hearing the words of Christ.

          • Guest

            Again, you are talking about laying the field and that has nothing to do with who is ready to harvest or choose to be harvested. Tell anyone and everyone the message of the Gospel but still respect their right to not accept that message.

          • Amos Moses

            “who is ready to harvest or choose to be harvested.”

            It is not a choice.

          • Guest

            Hmmm, yes it is. We must ask for the door to be opened.

          • Amos Moses

            FYI, ALL Halal meats are sacrificed to idols………………………

          • Guest

            And Kosher too, you are making my point.

          • Amos Moses

            Muslim-majority Indonesia’s gay community under attack – Yahoo News

            And more Muslims are being imported by our “Love wins”
            (p)resident.

            How do you think that is going to work out for you?

          • JoeNCA

            Muslim Americans are actually more tolerant of LGBT rights than Evangelical Americans.

            So I’ll take it!

          • Amos Moses

            You live in a dream world……………

          • JoeNCA

            Considering your hate for me is far more than any Muslim I’ve ever encountered, you’re the one in a dream world.

          • Amos Moses

            Telling you the truth is not hate. We are to be SALT and light, not SUGAR and light.

            “Muslim Americans are actually more tolerant of LGBT rights than Evangelical Americans.”

            All heresy eventually converges. But take a look at their “brethren” who throw gays off buildings and tell me how “tolerant” they are. Or you for that matter.

          • JoeNCA

            I’ve never met a single Muslim who’s wanted to do that to me.

            And yet, here you are, far, far, far less tolerant than any Muslim I’ve ever met.

          • Amos Moses

            So tell me how many christians have tried to do this to you…..

            The Secret Gay World of ISIS Members and Commanders –
            7 Jan 2016 … The Secret Gay World of ISIS Members and Commanders … been killed by ISIS for being gay: six stoned, three shot in the head, and 16 thrown …

            ISIS throw teen off roof for being gay but the chief who raped him is …
            3 Jan 2016 … ISIS throw 15-year-old boy off a roof for being gay… but the terror chief who raped … The ISIS commander who raped him is believed to be Abu Zaid … guns until they found prisoners and shot them in the head at close range.

            Teenager thrown from roof ‘for being gay’ – but the ISIS chief who …
            3 Jan 2016 … ISIS terror thugs killed a teenage boy for being ‘gay’ – but the man who … Zaid die for being homosexual, but ISIS commanders intervened and … North Korea fires missiles towards Japan after UN votes for harsher sanctions …

          • Amos Moses

            Although some Muslim political leaders in the West join with social liberals in alliances that occasionally include peripheral support for gay rights and civil unions, this appears to be more a matter of expediency than genuine concern. There has never been any noticeable effort on the part of Muslim leaders in the West to relieve the plight of homosexuals in Islamic countries overseas – where their influence would surely carry more weight than that of their secular allies.

            Quran (7:80-84) – “…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)” – An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the “rain of stones” on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people’s destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and29).

            Quran (7:81) – “Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?” This verse is part of the previous text and it establishes that homosexuality as different from (and much worse than) adultery or other sexual sin. According to the Arabic grammar, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while references elsewhere describe other forms of non-marital sex as being “among great sins.”

            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”

            Quran (4:16) – “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone” This is the Yusuf Ali translation. The original Arabic does not use the word “men” and simply says “two from among you.” Yusuf Ali may have added the word “men” because the verse seems to refer to a different set than referred to in the prior verse (explicitly denoted as “your women”). In other words, since 4:15 refers to “your women”, 4:16 is presumably written to and refers to men.

            Interestingly, the same rules don’t seem to apply in paradise, where martyrs for the cause of Allah enjoy an orgy of virgins and “perpetual youth” Quran (56:17) (otherwise known as “boys” Quran (52:24)). Quran (76:19) bluntly states, “And immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls.” Technically, the mere presence of boys doesn’t necessarily mean sex, however it is strongly implied from the particular emphasis on the effeminacy, handsomeness and “freshness” of the boys. The female virgins of paradise are also compared to pearls (56:23).

            There are several lesser hadith stating, “if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers,” “If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,” “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”

            Abu Dawud (4462) – The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.

            Abu Dawud (4448) – “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.” (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one’s wife).

            Bukhari (72:774) – “The Prophet cursed effeminate men, those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, ‘Turn them out of your houses .’ The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and ‘Umar turned out such-and-such woman.”

            al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.”

            Reliance of the Traveller, p17.2 – “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.” This is also repeated in three other places.

          • JoeNCA

            “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” – Leviticus 20:13

            Christians would too if they were no longer in polite company.

          • Amos Moses

            See, your problem is………no christian has done that recently.

            Muslims did those things…. last January……………. so try it again.

          • Amos Moses

            A 2014 fatwa from the mainstream on islam com proclaimed that homosexuality is “abnormal” and abhorrent” and confirmed that gays should be killed: “The punishment for men or women who are unwilling to give up homosexuality and therefore are rejecting the guidance of Allah Most High is in fact death according to Islam.”

            Since the resurrection of the caliphate in 2014 (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) dozens of homosexuals have been killed by being thrown from rooftops, others by stoning. Interestingly, the caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, issued a fatwa in 2015 permitting Mujahideen to “enjoy” young boys if women were not available.

          • DanH

            You’re an idiot.

      • Nofun

        What sin? Being gay is normal.

        They used to say being black was sinful because they were under the curse of Ham.

        • Amos Moses

          “What sin?”

          Race is not a sin, one does not choose ones race. Sexual sin is a choice.

          • gizmo23

            Religion is also a choice so in your world there should be no laws protecting religious folks from discrimination?

          • Amos Moses

            i do not expect this world to do anything to me but persecute me. So what?

          • gizmo23

            So stop complaining about it

          • Amos Moses

            Where was i complaining……………………………..

          • acontraryview

            Many people in the past, and some today, believe interracial marriage is a sin. Certainly the decision to marry someone of a different race is a choice. So, should a business owner who believes that interracial marriage is a sin be allowed to turn away an interracial couple?

          • Amos Moses

            There is nothing in scripture about race being a sin, quite the opposite.

      • Guest

        The business made an offer to the public knowing full well that every customer has a constitutional and statutory rights – both federal and state – to NOT share their beliefs about marriage and weddings and STILL buy the offered product.

        If someone can only sell something to people of certain beliefs why are they offering it to the public in the first place?

        • Amos Moses

          “If someone can only sell something to people of certain beliefs why are they offering it to the public in the first place?”

          Just because i offer a hammer to sell, if a person makes it known the use of that hammer is for murder, then i have a duty to NOT sell it to him.

          • Guest

            And if it were legal to use a hammer in murder your choice would be to sell hammers as the law requires or not sell them at all.

            It is legal for a same-sex couple to have a wedding so the choice is the same – sell the publicly offered service as the law requires or don’t offer it at all to the public at all.

          • Amos Moses

            No, i get to choose based on what i am told………………….

          • Guest

            No, that isn’t the right or the law. You have a right to not sell hammers if your faith won’t allow it, not to selectively offer hammers based on the faith-based use the customer has for it.

            Again, many states have that in the own state constitutions – that liberty of religious conscience isn’t an excuse to act without regard for the law or the rights of others – in this case the customer’s own right to have a belief different from the business owner and still accept the public offer.

          • Amos Moses

            There are unjust laws just as there are unjust men. i owe my allegiance to God/Christ, not men and their fallen corrupt nature.

          • Guest

            Then obey what you think God’s law is and not offer cupcakes for any wedding, simple solution, problem solved.

    • Diaris

      Give it a rest, gramps.

  • Amos Moses

    Kasich = Loser……… trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator…. and it does not get much lower.

  • Polish Bear

    Kasich has been single most of his adult life. When someone who identifies as a conservative stays single for decades, you can bet they’re not celibate. Lots of skeletons in this geek’s closet.

    • caseysheba

      What does this have to do with anything. Its just an ad hominem attack.

    • Nofun

      No, its just means they are gay.

    • Elizabeth Putnam

      When someone marries three times, it means they are definitely not celibate.

      • Thisoldspouse

        So if 2 spouses die, and you remarry a third time, you are not celibate?

        What a moron you are.

        • Elizabeth Putnam

          I’m talking about Trump. He has been divorced two times and is currently married to his third wife, Melania. Melania has been photographed naked for multiple magazines among other things. Trump has also cheated while being married.

          • Thisoldspouse

            I agree with you about Trump. He’s a slut, and no Christian if he defends his serial adultery. I’m just saying that there are legitimate, biblical reasons for divorce. Divorce DOES exist in Christianity. Marriage between two people of the same sex does not, if you are biblical about it.

          • Elizabeth Putnam

            I realize for adultery you are allowed to divorce your spouse in Christianity.

          • abnerbhatta

            I am not a DJ Trump fan, but if a man wants to find young women to have sex with after his wife has gotten menopausal or womenopausal, then that is no surprise. Think you know that to most men all things =, a 20 something women is prettier than a 40 something woman. Men want women who are pretty, not wrinkled. You know that as women get old esp. after menopause or womenopause, their looks become masculine. Woman’s prime years when it comes to beauty is when she is in 20s and 30s.

            Words like crones wouldn’t exist to call women who are menopausal (womenopausal) and word like midlife crisis wouldn’t exist to call men who are 40 or older.

          • Elizabeth Putnam

            That is a simple explanation as to why females are prettier when they are younger. That is when our prime birthing years are. Human as species want to be able to reproduce to be able to survive and therefore look for mates that can reproduce. Women after menopause can no longer reproduce and that is why males may not find them attractive anymore. Males after puberty can reproduce for most of their life.

  • Emmanuel

    Go to Costco, buy some cupcakes and charge twice as much. Good ethical business practice, look at out politicians.

    • mitchw7959

      Uhhh, fundamentalist Christians might not be too happy patronizing Costco.

      “A major U.S. retail chain has nabbed the top spot when it comes to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community’s best-perceived brands, a new survey has revealed. Making the leap from No. 14 last year, Costco surpassed Netflix and Panera Bread as 2014’s best-perceived brand by LGBT Americans, according to YouGov BrandIndex,the only daily consumer perception research service of brands. Also debuting in the top 20 this year are Ace Hardware, Subaru and Lowe’s, among others.”

      • AndrewDowling

        That photo of two corpses is very unattractive.

        • mitchw7959

          Glad you like it, and I appreciate your interest. We’ve been very happy for 19 years. We met when my partner was on active duty in the Navy, he’s 20 years and out retired now. We’ve been married for 5, going on 6 years, and at the parish we attend, our marriage was blessed by our priest and celebrated with our families and many friends dating back to college days.

          In the years since we were legally bound together under our jurisdiction’s civil marriage laws, we’ve saved a bundle in taxes since we can now file jointly. So sorry that there’s nothing that you, Andrew Dowling, or any other fundamentalist or religious conservative can do to revoke our happiness, or to harm any other LGBT person without consequence or penalty.

          • DanH

            Two pervs on food stamps. My tax dollars at work.

          • mitchw7959

            No food stamps here, bucko. You must be thinking about the white trash sludge that infests your trailer park or megachurch.

          • mitchw7959

            Sorry, nobody on food stamps at this address, not that there’s anything wrong with that; Republican policies in many states have hurt of a lot of people, who now find themselves in desperate need. But if you’re looking for pervs on food stamps, I’d suggest you will have better luck at your trailer park or nearest megachurch. Cheers.

          • Rusty Reiter

            Congrats on your long and happy marriage.

          • mitchw7959

            Thank you, sir, for your kindness.

    • Guest

      Actually they can’t charge more, but they most certainly can 3rd party contract out the making of the product if they feel they can’t do so – for whatever reason – as long as that option is stated in the service contract. Or just let the employee that has no need to religiously discriminate make the product, do the service.

      That’s what’s going to kill the case of the florist shop in Washington state. It had an employee that would have been glad to provide the advertised service but was ordered not to do so by the business owner.

    • Austin Rocks

      Heck no, go to Petsmart, they sell the treats for animals that spend their lives down on all fours.

      • Emmanuel

        LOL

  • TheKingOfRhye

    “He suggested that while churches should have conscience protections, businesses should “move on” in regard to homosexuality”

    Exactly. The key word there is businesses.

    • Nofun

      That includes for-profit chapels.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Good point.

      • Thisoldspouse

        So, making a profit nullifies our First Amendment freedoms?

        I must keep up better with the new paradigm.

        • Nofun

          Just obey the law …do your job …. and leave your religious bigotry in your home and church.

        • Hastur

          the first amendments gives you the right to worship but it has never been held that that right includes ignoring laws you feel conflict with your cults teachings, that’s why Mormons were only allowed back into america after they agreed to stop practicing polygamy

        • Nofun

          Its like how you can’t sacrifice your children to jesus.

  • afchief

    “Usually missed in the commentary on this subject is that the bakers in question are not refusing service to a type of people — they are refusing to be party to a type of message. This is not debatable. When you put writing on a same-sex “wedding” cake, you’re crafting a message; if you place figurines (of two men, for instance) on that cake, you’re erecting symbols relating that message. Note here that the Supreme Court has already ruled that “Symbolic Speech” — a legal term in U.S. law — is protected under the First Amendment; examples of such rulings would be that pertaining to flag-burning and the Tinker v. Des Moines case.

    And can we compel people to participate in the creation of a message? Forced speech is not free speech.

    Some homosexuality activists have likened the bakers’ refusal to provide faux-wedding cakes to a denial of service to blacks. This is a false analogy. A race-specific refusal is denying service based on what a person is; in the wedding-cake incidents, denial was based on what message was being requested.

    In point of fact, none of the targeted bakers had erected signs stating “No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service.” Nor did they apply a sexuality test to customers. Homosexuals could patronize their establishments and purchase cookies, bread or any products anyone else could; they could even buy wedding cakes for normal weddings — as anyone else could. And, of course, probability would dictate that homosexuals did buy from those bakers at times.

    What actually is analogous to the wedding-cake controversy is a black person asking a baker for a cake expressing a racial message such as “Black Power” or “Fight the Blue-eyed Devils.” Of course, it could also be a white person with a white-power message or a neo-Nazi asking a Jewish baker to craft an anti-Semitic one.

    Some may now assert that while a faux-marriage message is positive (in their eyes, anyway), the above messages would be hateful. But the nature of a message doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a message. To drive the point home, should a liberal baker be compelled to craft the message, “Celebrate Gun Rights,” “Life Begins at Conception” or “Marriage is One Man, One Woman”?

    Here’s another point: It has often been emphasized that unless the First Amendment protects even unpopular speech, its “protection” is a sham.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker. com/articles/2015/02/how_to_win_the_christian_bakersamesex_wedding_cake_debate.html#ixzz4186HIdVa

    • Nofun

      No one asked them to part of any message. They were simple asked to do their jobs.

      They are not victims.

      • Thisoldspouse

        Business owners are their own bosses, they describe what their “jobs” are.

        They are not employed by the state.

  • Nofun

    If you have rebellious children you are suppose to get the village to help you kill them if you have strong biblical values.

  • Nidalap

    Ooh…’Let them eat cake’, is it? They don’t WANT cake. They want to transform the society into their dream utopia. That’s why would-be dictators sidle up to factions like these. They can be counted on to work to transfer power out of the hands of the People, who won’t give them their dream, into the hands of a few officials, who will promise them that they WILL…

    • Guest

      No, it has been illegal in most states for a business making offers to the public to religiously discriminate in their customers for 50+years explicitly, and constitutionally in many states since as early as 1777.

      All of these businesses have ways they could operate legally AND religiously discriminate against their customers, they are just too ignorant/lazy/greedy to bother to do it. There’s is the need to religiously discriminate, its up to them to go to the effort to do so legally.

      Fortunately these businesses that do religiously discriminate are rare as hen’s teeth.

  • FoJC_Forever

    The spirits of antichrist are moving forward with horrific force to prepare the world for the advent of the Antichrist. The Time is short. The End of this Age is at hand. Prepare your hearts, minds, and bodies to receive the Salvation of God through the LORD Jesus (the) Christ. Don’t pander to people who simply want to argue and debate, but receive the Word and Spirit of God’s cleansing and guidance. The closer we get to Jesus, the more the world will hate us. The closer we get to Jesus, the more we become like Him and are filled with the Goodness of the Kingdom of God.

    Follow Jesus, find Salvation.

  • lorac odraned

    Kasich is a wimp. His caving in to sinful behavior, homosexual self-perceived demands, will not get him elected. He will be the next to drop out.

    • Nofun

      Yes, he should hate gay people …. its what jesus would have wanted.

  • ewe …

    We will see the bigots incourt and they will be put out of business, fined and perhaps incarcerated for discrimination. How about a waitress refusing to serve food to this very large round beast of a woman calling herself s baker because she is fat? Is that ok with y’all? Evangelical Christians are reprehensible creatures. See you in court.

    • Austin Rocks

      You misspelled your name, it should end with a “w.”

      • ewe …

        Mindless and a waste of time you are.

  • David & Jonathan

    The funny thing about this whole discussion is that the self acclaimed “christians” don’t even see that the bible is the most pro gay book in this world.
    We have Jesus stating that homosexuals are born gay, we have Isaiah stating that there will be a monument for homosexuals in heaven greater than having children, we have the same sex love stories of David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and …., the Roman soldier and his toy boy and last but not least, Jesus and his “beloved disciple”. No condemnation of loving and caring same sex relationships to be found, with even Paul confirming that everyone has received his own gift of god.
    We have Jesus explaining that there are two foundational commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor. Foundational as constitutional, meaning, all commandments and laws are built upon these two. In no way you can deduce homosexuality to be a sin from these two commandments. Therefore it can not be a sin. Careful reading of all the other so called clobber passages make it clear that homosexuality has never been a sin.

    Homosexuality as a sin is a human construct, made so by the Roman Catholic church around 390 after christ. Because their biggest competitors for “religious domination” were the Arians, where the most influential arians (like Eusebius of Nicomedia) were all homosexuals and as such had trusted positions at the court of the emperor. After the RC church won, they trashed the Arians, and one way to ensure they would never become powerful again was to discredit them: making homosexuality the sin of sins….

    • Amos Moses

      “The funny thing about this whole discussion is that the self acclaimed “christians” don’t even see that the bible is the most pro gay book in this world. ”

      What UTTER nonsense…………………

      • David & Jonathan

        Well Moses, the only nonsense is homosexuality being a sin.

        Explain to me, how can you deduce from the two constitutional commandments (which are the foundation of all other laws and commandments) that homosexuality is a sin? You can not.

        If it is not a sin in accordance with the two constitutional commandments, it is clear that the so called “clobber passages” must be misinterpretations. Lets have a look at the OT. Everybody who takes the bible seriously knows already that S&G was never about homosexuality. If S&G would condemn homosexuality, Judges 19 and 20 would equally condemn heterosexuality, which is obviously nonsense. Why? because in Judges 19 and 20 we have a copy of the S&G story line, with the same result. The only difference is that in S&G a woman gets raped. It doesn’t matter for the outcome. The city is destroyed. Read also all other references to S&G in the bible. None of them identifies homosexuality to be the sin of S&G. Or ask the copyright holders to that story (Judaism). They will equally confirm that S&G was about greed, inhospitality and grave injustice. That S&G was about homosexuality is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church in 390 AC, to fight their biggest competitors Arianism, as they were in large numbers homosexuals.

        Or lets have a closer look at Leviticus 18 and 20. In both you find reference to having sex with a woman during her period. Terrible sin, resulting in expulsion from the people of Israel. However, in Leviticus 15:24 we find exactly the same “sin”, now only resulting in seven days of ritual uncleanness. Not a real big issue… This clearly points to a contextual difference between Lev 15 and 18/20.

        It is even quite clear what that contextual difference is. We have in both 18 and 20 clear references to Molek worshipping. Your favorite word “abomination” confirms this, although the word “abomination” is not a real good translation of the word “Toevah”. Toevah does indeed mean abomination, but only within a context of Idolatry.

        A bit of context: Molek (and Baal) worshipping was all about fertility rituals (well documented): sex rites in temples, where men and women had sex with everything on 2 and 4 legs. Orgies.

        Sex within the context of Molek and Baal worshipping is idolatry, and obviously against the commandment “Love God”.

        Sex outside of that context (as for example in Lev 15) is not a sin at all, unless it violates the second commandment “Love your Neighbor” which is not the case for homosexuality.

        Conclusion, there is no reference in the OT that condemns homosexuality. Why would there then be in the NT?

        • Amos Moses

          Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1:9-10

          • David & Jonathan

            Lets start with Corinthians and Timothy:
            Paul his list in these two letters didn’t include homosexuality. That is a current day translation that only proves the prejudice of the translator.

            First of all, Paul didn’t write the letter in English. He wrote the letter in Greek. And the word you are referring to is the word Arsenokoites, which literally translated “man bed”, with the word bed in a sexual connotation. As this word was never used before, there is no clear understanding of what it actually means. Current day greek dictionaries explain it as meaning masturbators.

            It was the translators of the KJV that translated it for you into english. It is clear that they also didn’t understand what the word Arsenokoites means. If they thought it would mean homosexuals (current day word) they would have used the word Sodomite, as this word was already in use to describe homosexuals since 390 After Christ. Just as Paul would have used the word “paiderasste” if he wanted to refer to homosexuals. Instead the translators came with the vague translation “Abusers of themselves with mankind”.

            As you are probably more familiar with the english version, lets have a look at what it says…

            First of all, why do you assume that the people that are the “abusers of themselves” are male? That can not be deduced from the text. Secondly, the word “Mankind” is used to refer to the human species, which includes male and female.

            And third of all, there is the word abuse, which points to something sexual without consent.

            Basically, your english version can mean anything.

            That you believe it to be about homosexuality is only proving your prejudice, as it is not supported by the text. Not in English, and certainly not in the original Greek.

            So there is not a single point of evidence that Paul was referring to homosexuality.

            Your interpretation, Is just the flavor of the day, with no more substantiation than past interpretations such as masturbators, male prostitutes (for women), rapists, etc.

          • Amos Moses

            Lets start by you taking your twisted notions elsewhere…………………….

          • David & Jonathan

            Why would I?
            This is a Christian website, and I am referring to the gospel.

            Something you clearly do not understand…

          • Amos Moses

            You have to have truth and be in truth to show any body you are correct….. and you do not have it. Not even close………………..

          • David & Jonathan

            And lets have a close look at Romans 1 as well:

            First of all, Romans 1 is only an introduction to Romans 2. Paul is nicely sweeping up his public to make his point in Romans 2:

            2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

            And why don’t you read the preceding verses?

            Lets start with verse 23:

            23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

            Only then we come to your favorite part…

            26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did EXCHANGE THEIR natural use into that which is against THEIR nature:

            27 And likewise also the men, leaving THEIR natural use of the woman, BURNED in their lust one toward another;

            Within the context of adultery we are talking here about straight people, who as part of their pagan sex/fertility rituals had sex with everything on two and four legs. What needs to happen for you yourself as a straight man to burn in lust for another man? That is quite something don’t you think?

            Romans 1 has nothing to do with homosexuality as in a loving and caring relationship. It is about Idolatry.

            Not applicable…

          • Amos Moses

            Do not waste your time… i am not convinced by your attempts to twist scripture to your own twisted ends and machinations.

            I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who are trying to annoy me.

          • David & Jonathan

            I am not trying to annoy you. I am trying to show you that you are on the wrong way. Repent before it is too late!

          • Amos Moses

            You have to have truth and be in truth to show anybody you are correct….. and you do not have it.

          • David & Jonathan

            I do, and it is written in the bible…. I follow Jesus.
            You come with human constructs. You follow the likes of Thomas Acquinas, and the Roman Catholic Church’s 390 AC strategy to win from the Arians…

          • Amos Moses

            Sure, dewd, whatever……………. i would say you don’t know diddly, but the fact is you know less than diddly.

          • David & Jonathan

            Explain to me one thing. In good old leviticus 18 and 20 you find that a having sex with a woman during her period is a grave sin resulting in expulsion from the people of Israel. The same “sin” is also mentioned in Leviticus 15:24 but now it is not a sin at all. It is only resulting in 7 days of uncleanliness (the same as the woman herself during her period, with or without sex). Quite a difference don’t you think? Please explain why…

          • Amos Moses

            Again, less than diddly……….

          • Amos Moses

            Take your “firey buddles” and go find someone else to deceive.

          • David & Jonathan

            You have been deceived long time ago.

            Explain to me one thing. In good old leviticus 18 and 20 you find that a having sex with a woman during her period is a grave sin resulting in expulsion from the people of Israel. The same “sin” is also mentioned in Leviticus 15:24 but now it is not a sin at all. It is only resulting in 7 days of uncleanliness (the same as the woman herself during her period, with or without sex). Quite a difference don’t you think? Please explain why…

          • Amos Moses

            “I do, and it is written in the bible…. I follow Jesus.”
            “Explain to me one thing. In good old leviticus 18 and 20 you find that a having sex with a woman during her period is a grave sin resulting”

            Gee, i guess you do not follow Him if you are coming up with this stuff….. Told you that you are not in truth………….. Must be a “Jesus” in your own image…… and an idol.. so you are really into idolatry……………. have fun with that………..L8tr h8tr

        • Amos Moses

          “Explain to me, how can you deduce from the two constitutional commandments (which are the foundation of all other laws and commandments) that homosexuality is a sin? ”

          All sin comes down to breaking the first two commandments. No other Gods before me, and Idolatry. Homosexuality covers both. Period, end of discussion.

          Disregard of God and making yourself god is what we all do. The rest of the commandments are commentary.

          He is the I AM, not us.

          • David & Jonathan

            Homosexuality is nothing different from heterosexuality when it comes to idolatry. It has nothing to do with it. My love for my husband does not mean i worship him as a God, just as your love for your wife (assuming you are a man) has nothing to do with you worshipping as a God.
            You didnt even substantiate the 2nd command.
            I am not disregarding God. You apply a circle reasoning, as it needs to be a sin before you can claim i am disregarding God. To make homosexuality a sin, it should contravene one of the two commandments. it does not, and as such there is no disregard of God.

          • Amos Moses

            “Homosexuality is nothing different from heterosexuality when it comes to idolatry.”

            i believe i just said that. Did i not just say “Disregard of God and making yourself god is what we all do.” But there is no marriage between two of the same sex and it does not change what God has declared as sin. ANY sex outside of marriage.

            “To make homosexuality a sin, it should contravene one of the two commandments. it does not, and as such there is no disregard of God.”

            No, it is sin because God HAS DECLARED IT TO BE SIN.

            And this is why you do not believe Christ. You do not follow “Jesus”, except a god you have named “Jesus” in your own corrupt image, or you would not be here saying what you are saying. You are here to say that sin is not sin. Your argument is not with any christian, who are in line with Christ, in agreement with Christ, your argument is with CHRIST.

            Good luck with that.

          • David & Jonathan

            God gave us two rules that govern everything. If it goes against those two rules, it is a sin, if it does not go against these two rules, it is not a sin.

            You come with interpretations of other verses in the bible and base yourself upon these other verses to declare something a sin. That is not how it works with constitutional commandments. If it doesn’t follow from (only) these two commandments that something is a sin, it is not a sin.

            You think God declared it a sin, but I can show you he has not. There is not a single verse in the bible condemning homosexuality. Your ideas are a human invention and go against everything Jesus stood for. My point of view is in accordance with scripture/gospel. That is the Jesus I am following.

            Yours is an invention of the Roman Catholic church, 390 after christ.

            Why was sex before marriage a sin in the bible? because a daughter was property of the father, which property was sold by the contract of marriage. It was important that the girl was a virgin, so that bloodlines were clear (no chance that the girl was pregnant from another man). The girl losing her virginity before the sale was concluded meant a reduction of value of the property of the father. Hence, value was stolen from the father. That is the reason why the man that took the virginity of the girl before marriage had the duty to conclude the transaction by paying the father the value of the girl.
            Exodus 22: 16″If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.
            This also make sense in terms of the ten commandments. Do not Steal…

            As in current days no dowry is being paid to the father of the girl anymore, taking a girls virginity before marriage is not equal to stealing anymore. No depreciation of value has occurred. Therefore no theft has taken place, and therefore it is not a sin.

            A man was never expected to pay a dowry for a man anyway (as we also see with the marriage between David and Jonathan), sex before marriage could never have been a sin based on these commandments.

            Conclusion, your arguments fail…

          • Amos Moses

            “God gave us two rules that govern everything. If it goes against those two rules, it is a sin, if it does not go against these two rules, it is not a sin.”

            “You come with interpretations of other verses in the bible and base yourself upon these other verses to declare something a sin. ”

            So, you really do not see that that is exactly what YOU are doing? You have come up with your own “interpretation” of what a sin is. You are in fact DISREGARDING what God has said, and you are coming up with your own definition.

            FYI, it is not “loving” to yourself or your “partner” to give them Aids and other diseases by those acts of homosexuality. And outside of a biblical marriage, affirmed by Christ as to what EXACTLY that is in Matthew 19, and God has defined that relationship, NOT MEN.

            But again, that does not fit with your corrupt idea of what sin is, and again, you ignore God/Christs teaching on the matter.

          • David & Jonathan

            I don’t disregard anything of what God has said. But I am also not following the man made twists in God’s word.
            And I have some other information for you: A monogamous homosexual relationship has exactly the same risks for attracting STDs as a monogamous heterosexual relationship: ZERO!
            Homosexuality is not the same thing as promiscuity. Promiscuity (especially when not using condoms) is deadly.
            Jesus was very clear about what a sin is. It is something that goes against the two foundational commandments. That is not a new interpretation, that is his word.
            Your definition of “sins” is not compatible with those two commandments. Studying the verses that you use as excuses for your opinion makes clear that your interpretation is rubbish. As I have explained many times. They don’t hold.
            Matthew 19 clearly gives the exemptions to the marriage between man and wife as well. We also see in the story of David and Jonathan as well as the vows between Ruth and Naomi (used in approx. 50% of christian weddings) that with same sex relationships a covenant equal to marriage is the norm. It is for that reason that the story of David and Jonathan uses exactly the same wording as Genesis (and therefore a man shall leave the house of his father = and therefore David did not return to the house of his father, just next to the verse about the covenant between David and Jonathan). It is therefore that the story of Ruth and Naomi uses exactly the same wording again as Genesis 2:24: 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. Ruth cleaved to Naomi in Ruth 1:14.

            You still have not explained to me how you can deduce from the foundational two commandments how homosexuality is a sin…

          • Amos Moses

            There are no “man made rules”. What it is, you do not want to follow any rules.

            “Jesus was very clear about what a sin is. It is something that goes against the two foundational commandments.”

            Chapter and verse……………………………………………….

          • David & Jonathan

            Your Chapter and verse:

            Matthew 22:36-40King James Version (KJV)

            36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

            37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

            38 This is the first and great commandment.

            39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

            40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

          • Amos Moses

            Right, so where do you get from that, if it does not violates that, it is not a sin?

            Because, it is not there. Reading it, in context, it does not say that. You are adding to scripture, which scripture says, in four separate places, we are not to do. That is disregard for God/Christ words.

          • Amos Moses

            “You still have not explained to me how you can deduce from the foundational two commandments how homosexuality is a sin…”

            You have yet to explain how it exempts anyone from the law. Or that is says what you seem to think it says. It does not when read in context,,,,,which you refuse to do.

          • David & Jonathan

            The two commandments ARE THE LAW. There is no law outside these two commandments.

            Matthew 22:36-40King James Version (KJV)

            36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

            37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

            38 This is the first and great commandment.

            39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

            40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

          • Amos Moses

            “The two commandments ARE THE LAW. There is no law outside these two commandments.”

            Scripture does not say that, you are adding to scripture……………………..In fact, it is confirming that the other laws, the ten commandments, and a few others, (40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.) are ALL PART of that. You proceed from a false premise and are adding to scripture, which we are forbidden to do, Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22 18-21.

          • David & Jonathan

            Lets have a very clear look at what the text actually says.

            Matthew 22:36-40King James Version (KJV)

            36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

            37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

            38 This is the first and great commandment.

            -> Clearly this is the most important commandment according to Jesus

            39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

            -> Clearly this is the second most important commandment according to Jesus.

            Till now these two are not “constitutional” yet.

            40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

            -> Now it becomes interesting. Lets have a look what “to hang on” means within this context.
            We have several options:

            1. hang on to. Cling tightly to something, retain, as in Hang on to those papers before they blow away. [Mid-1800s] Also see hang on to your hat.
            2. Continue persistently, persevere, as in This cough is hanging on much longer than I expected, or He was hanging on, hoping business would improve when interest rates went down. This usage was sometimes embellished to hang on by one’s eyelashes or eyebrows or eyelids , meaning “to persist at any cost.” [Second half of 1800s]
            3. Keep a telephone connection open, as in Please hang on, I’ll see if he’s in. [First half of 1900s]
            4. Wait for a short time, be patient, as in Hang on, I’m getting it as fast as I can. [First half of 1900s]
            5. Depend on, as in Our plans hang on their decision about the new park. [Colloquial; second half of 1900s]
            6. Blame on, as in They’ll try to hang that robbery on the same gang, but I don’t think they’ll succeed. [Colloquial; first half of 1900s]
            7. hang one on. Get very drunk, as in Come on, let’s go and hang one on. [Slang; mid-1900s] Also see the subsequent idioms beginning with hang on.

            Given the context, my choice for the meaning of “To hang on” would be no. 5. I think we can both agree that it would have nothing to do with getting drunk (7), blame (6), waiting (4), keeping a telephone connection open (3), continuing persistently (2) or to cling on something (1).

            Rereading verse 40: On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.

            So the meaning of all other laws, and all what the prophets have said, depend on these two commandments. What does that mean for any (interpretation of a) law that does not depend on these two commandments? In that case it doesn’t qualify as a law, according to Jesus.

            As Moses was a prophet (the greatest prophet), it also applies to his words (the ten commandments as well as Leviticus).

            I am not adding anything. That is not necessary. Everything is in the text itself.

          • Amos Moses

            It does not say “hang on to”….. again….. FAIL!

            “I am not adding anything. ” Yes, you just demonstrated that you do……FAIL!

          • David & Jonathan

            Go read your bible before you call another a lyer. Remember that bearing false witness made it to the famous ten.
            www dot bible gateway dot com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40

          • Amos Moses

            “And I have some other information for you: A monogamous homosexual relationship has exactly the same risks for attracting STDs as a monogamous heterosexual relationship: ZERO!
            Homosexuality is not the same thing as promiscuity. Promiscuity (especially when not using condoms) is deadly.”

            If only any of that were true………….

            Overall, MSM — including those who inject drugs — account for more than half of the 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (59%, or an estimated 712,500 persons) and approximately two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year (66%, or an estimated 31,400 infections).

            Comparing 2008 to 2010, there was a 12 percent increase in the number of new infections among MSM. Among the youngest MSM — those aged 13 – 24 — new infections increased 22 percent, from 7,200 infections in 2008 to 8,800 in 2010.

            While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).2

            White MSM continue to represent the largest number of new HIV infections among MSM (11,200), followed closely by black MSM (10,600) and Hispanic MSM (6,700).

            From: CDC

          • David & Jonathan

            Do your math, approx 10 million Gay people in the US, approx 550,000 infected with HIV, which means approx 95% is healthy. Another statistic:93% of all HIV infected live in a city, applying your logic means that all people living in cities have an increased risk of getting HIV. Correlation is not the same as causation. You learn that in lesson one in the book statistics for dummies. Again, homosexuality is not tge same as promiscuity…

          • Amos Moses

            Half of black men who are gay and a quarter of Latino gay men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetimes if current trends continue, according to a first-of-its-kind federal analysis released Tuesday.

            The findings present a stark reminder of the threat still posed by the AIDS virus 35 years after the illness was first detected, despite progress in treatment and prevention.

            “It was really a clarion call,” said Dawn Fukuda, director of the HIV/AIDS division at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, who heard the report presented at the international Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston. “These are numbers that are pretty astounding.”

            Boston Globe 6 days ago…….. So yes. Do your own math…………….

          • David & Jonathan

            Im not black and not Latino. Not that they are in any way less then I am.

            Again, homosexuality and promiscuity are two very different things.

            If I have only sex with my husband, and he has only sex with me, what are our chances to attract HIV you think? (we are both healthy at the moment).

          • Amos Moses

            “Again, homosexuality and promiscuity are two very different things.”

            i do not care what you are or are not. Makes no difference to God or the disease that certain “lifestyles” bring on the persons involved. You being here saying it is otherwise is a lie.

            If you are a woman and you have a husband, that would be fine. But that is not what we are talking about, a “man” does not have a “husband”, unless there is some corruption of language and common sense that is at issue, as it seems to be. That is part of a Reprobate Mind.

            No, sorry, you do not “follow Jesus” as you reject what scripture, Christs words, CLEARLY say……… Romans 1………….

            1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

            1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; >>>>>men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.<<<<<<

            1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

            Men with men, nothing about any monogamous relationship, "marriage" or any of the other tripe that certain persons want to throw into the mix.

            No exceptions, sorry, not part of scripture………….

          • David & Jonathan

            Again you are guilty of circle reasoning. God has no problem with homosexuality. Promiscuity is indeed a life style, homosexuality is inborn (as confirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:11 and 12). If I am lying, jesus is lying.

            I have a husband in every sense of the word. That you think not is only your opinion, not substantiated by law, scripture or common public opinion.

            Lets have a close look at Romans 1:

            First of all, Romans 1 is only an introduction to Romans 2. Paul is nicely sweeping up his public to make his point in Romans 2:

            2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

            And why don’t you read the preceding verses?

            Lets start with verse 23:

            23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles

            (sounds like the Roman Catholic Church don’t you think?).

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

            Clearly we are again talking about a context of Idolatry.

            Only then we come to your favorite part…

            26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did EXCHANGE THEIR natural use into that which is against THEIR nature:

            27 And likewise also the men, leaving THEIR natural use of the woman, BURNED in their lust one toward another;

            Within the context of idolatry we are talking here about straight people, who as part of their pagan sex/fertility rituals had sex with everything on two and four legs. What needs to happen for you yourself as a straight man to burn in lust for another man? That is quite something don’t you think? That only happens in religious sex rituals were people are crazy with lust.

            Romans 1 has nothing to do with homosexuality as in a loving and caring relationship. It is about Idolatry.

            Not applicable…

          • Amos Moses

            “God has no problem with homosexuality.”

            Scripture says otherwise……..

            Matthew 19
            19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
            19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

            Sorry, a homosexual IS NOT A EUNUCH, so FAIL. That is a lie that you are trying to perpetrate…………..

            “I have a husband in every sense of the word. That you think not is only your opinion, not substantiated by law, scripture or common public opinion.”

            There is no PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of scripture. But that is what YOU are doing. Scripture has NEVER been used to say what you are trying to say. FAIL!

            “Romans 1 has nothing to do with homosexuality as in a loving and caring relationship. It is about Idolatry.”

            There is NO such provision in Romans 1. FAIL!

            1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

            1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

            1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

            Again as we can see, no such exemption for your private interpretation. FAIL!

            “Within the context of idolatry we are talking here about straight people, ”

            Straight men do not “burn in their desire” for other men. FAIL! Homosexuals do. Men with men….. again…. FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • JoeNCA

    “The next thing, you know, they might be saying if you’re divorced you shouldn’t get a cupcake.”

    That’s ridiculous! It’s never about sin. “Christian” bakers bake for second weddings all the time, something Christ explicitly calls a sin (as opposed to gay marriage which He never calls a sin).

    Because it’s never about “sin.” It’s about prejudice masquerading as religion. But these bakers fully admit they’ll gladly take the money of sinful adulterers in directly violation of the word of Christ… and of course the GoFundMe money of suckers who believe they’re actually following the word of Christ.

  • Thisoldspouse

    I can’t stand the weasel phrase “personally believes in….” and not make that an actionable statement implementing that position. I “personally believe” that circles are superior to squares in the manufacturing of vehicular wheels and tires, but am I going to let manufactures make and offer to me cars with square wheels? That’s madness, and no one is “trying to impose” their beliefs by saying so and fighting such absurdity.

    • Michael C

      One can hold personal beliefs while still respecting others’ differing personal beliefs.

      It’s like the freedom of religion. While most of the Founding Fathers clearly held very strong personal religious beliefs, they respected the fact that others have the right to hold differing opinions. Even though they had strong personal beliefs, they knew better than to “implement” those beliefs by codifying them into law.

      Kasich can personally believe that True Marriage™ is between one man and one woman while still respecting the fact that others believe differently (..and deserve equal treatment under the law).

      • Amos Moses

        Why? You do not…………….

        • Michael C

          You’re welcome to finish your thought. Please explain.

          • Amos Moses

            Michael, if only you followed half of what you write. But you do not.

          • Michael C

            I am willing to discuss whatever you are attempting to address. Please tell me what it is.

    • Nofun

      Manufacturers would be happy to make square wheels if there was a market for it …stupid analogy.

  • Thisoldspouse

    The bottom line is, who OWNS these businesses? The state, or the people who enormously risk investment of time, capital, labor and reputation to make a go of it?

    • Guest

      No, the bottom line is – is the licensed business going to operate legally or not? All licensed businesses are regulated, from how the exits have to be marked, the kitchen has to be kept, and how the responding customers have to be treated. It has been illegal to discriminate in a public offer against a customer because of their beliefs for 50+ years in most places.

      Can’t sell something to people of all beliefs then don’t sell that something via a public offer. The need to religiously discriminate is the business owners, its up to them to pursuit one of the several ways to do that legally.

    • Nofun

      If you can’t follow the laws relating to a business open to the public don’t have one.

      • Thisoldspouse

        Again, you completely fail to answer my question. Who OWNS these businesses? Answer, Fascist.

    • Hastur

      all businessmen still have to obey the law

  • SSGT_Randolph

    It’s refreshing to read about some Christianity with a dash of common sense. Kasich is proof that one does not have to be a hateful bigot to be a Christian.

    • Thisoldspouse

      No, one just has to believe in modern slavery to believe as Kasick does.

    • Amos Moses

      Who said he was a christian?

  • Thisoldspouse

    The hypocrisy and logical knots that the homofascists have to engage in is mind-numbing. First, they attack tax-exempt, non-profit organizations (churches, religious organizations, etc.) for being ‘subsidized’ by government through not paying most taxes, saying that they can do what they want and engage in free speech once their tax-exempt status is removed. All the while, private businesses which ARE taxes are not allowed to do what churches, which are NOT taxed, are allowed to do. So what’s the solution, Fascists? To tax or not to tax?

    • Guest

      Not hypocrisy, just your not understand the law and the constitution.

      There is a freedom of association, churches, private clubs, non-profits all have an acknowledge right to associate with just those of their choosing – the SCOTUS ruling on the Boy Scouts long ago was based on that.

      But a business making public offers is chosing to, of their own free will, associate with that public, knowing before they advertised that every single solitary member of that public has a constitutional right to NOT share the religious beliefs of the owner and still buy the advertised product.

      The tax issue isn’t about rights, its about getting a special right (tax exemption) and then behaving politically. If a religious organization can be tax free AND do whatever it wants every business would be a religious organization. Its a trade off – if the religious business wants to be ‘on the dole’ they have to give up something in return. If they don’t want to be on the dole then they can do whatever they want.

      • Thisoldspouse

        Aw, the first Fascist speaks up.

        • Guest

          And if an ad-hominem is all you have you have nothing.

  • Russ Neal

    The point here is to force people to deny Christ in public as a condition of being able to participate in the economic life of the community. Churches are exempted (for now) as a way of keeping cowardly pastors hiding under their desks instead of standing up for Christ in public.

  • ewe …

    Lookin lookie everybody. The christiannews monitor is going around censoring comments of anyone who doesn’t display anti gay sentiments. Their own form of regular Christian love in practice. Also known to the rest of society as hatred.

    • kagl982

      Poor little crybaby.
      Go to your safe space, little girl.

      • ewe …

        Figures you’re a pervert. Color me surprised.

  • David & Jonathan

    Christian business should serve same sex weddings for sure, as the bible is one of the most pro gay books ever written….

  • plsinatra

    “[G]uess what? I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay,” Kasich explained. “Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or I can’t love them.”
    Guess what Guv, this isn’t about ‘thinking the way you do’…it’s about thinking they way God thinks and living by God’s standards. As it is, you are thinking as the world thinks, not as God thinks. We may not always like or understand God’s standards, and sometimes His standards and laws might make us ‘uncomfortable’. But as Christians, who hold to God’s word and God’s standard as supreme, we aren’t given a choice in the matter. God’s laws and standards are meant to help us live life abundantly, joyfully, healthfully and in a way that glorifies our Creator. Homosexuality does not fit this standard. These are God’s rules and standards, not mine or anyone else’s! And He gives these rules and standards because He LOVES us…WE are the ones who cause division, strife and chaos when we refuse to obey God’s laws and commands!
    So, I agree that we are to love and care about people who believe differently than we do, but be assured that it is NOT loving or caring to enable or encourage people to live a life of disobedience to the Lord in the name of political correctness or sparing peoples’ ‘feelings’. Whether they accept your beliefs on the matter is irrelevant…ultimately YOU will stand in judgement for own words and actions.

    • Thisoldspouse

      Kasich went to a fake same-sex “wedding?” Then that means that he endorsed it by his presence, unless he was there to speak up in opposition when the minister asks for such a reason. Kasich is, then, no Christian. Yes, you can identify Christians and non-Christians by their behavior. The homoFascists do it all the time, after all.

  • glenbo

    If Christian business owners can practice discrimination towards gays, then atheists as well as gay owned business owners can turn away all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. based on the logic of Christians.
    Muslim business owners can also turn away Christians, Hindus, Jews etc.
    Any tax-exempt religious organization that turns away gays who PAY TAXES should not only loose their tax-exempt status, but also should loose any tax funded government subsidies.
    Only churches and chaplains should be allowed to reject “sinners.”
    One cannot expect a free ride from the tax paying public while simultaneously telling the taxpayers to take a hike.

    • FoJC_Forever

      Christians would joyfully accept the persecution for being followers of Jesus (the) Christ, whereas those who are under the Devil’s sway will complain, harass, and attack Christians.

      • Guest

        Nice turn around, you portray the businesses engaging in religious discrimination and disrespect of the customer’s religious freedom as the victims.

        Sorry, it is the customer’s who are being illegally discriminated against. Can only sell something to people of particular beliefs find those ‘right’ people first and then make just them the offer as a private club or non-profit.

        What is wrong is advertising to everyone and then applying a religious test the customer’s must pass to actually buy the advertised product.

        UnAmerican, UnEthical, UnChristian.

      • glenbo

        >”Christians would joyfully accept the persecution for
        being followers of Jesus”” those who are under the Devil’s sway”<

        How illogical an almighty “creator” would also create a
        devil.

        Makes no sense.

        However it makes for a great excuse for all the flaws in
        nature…that your imaginary non-existent god also “created.”

        I suppose malaria, cancer and the Zika virus are the work of
        your imaginary non-existent devil as well.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Homosexuality is one of the things being used to lay the ground work for the Mark of the Beast. If you refuse to obey the Beast, you cannot buy or sell. Control the economy. Those who follow Jesus (the) Christ have to be prepared to possibly be unemployed, even ‘homeless’ to follow the LORD into the Kingdom of God. This world is spiraling into Darkness quickly, and the End of the Age is at hand. Nothing in this life is worth compromising the Covenant made by Jesus.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

  • ocrttol

    I am continually surprised that the topic of the Golden Rule never comes up when discussing how businesses run by Christians should react to gay couples, formerly divorced couples, couples of the “wrong” skin color and other customers that they would prefer to refuse service to.

    Jesus is quoted in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 as requiring his followers to treat others as his followers would wish to be treated in return.

    This is called the Ethics of Reciprocity and are found in all of the major religions.

    • darh477

      That’s stupid.

  • ocrttol

    Note to the author of the article: You seem to consider Jesus and the Church as a symbol for Christian marriage, But Jesus was one man, and the Church consists of men and women, Thus Christ and his church would not symbolize s marriage of one women to one man. It would symbolize some type of union of one man to multiple men and women.

    I don’t even know what that would be called.

  • Rev Donald Spitz

    I will never vote for John Kasich. Homosexuality should be criminalized. Homosexuality is a crime against God and against the Holy Bible. After reading this story I know why God wrote:
    Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
    Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: :26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: :27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

  • qcubed

    I adore the hysteria you Christstains generate when you get all bent out of shape about so-called ‘attacks on religious liberty’. Your monumental hypocrisy amuses me to no end as you bitch and moan about this, all the while demanding that YOUR ideals be impressed upon ALL AMERICANS, regardless of their agreement or disagreement on the issue (particularly in the areas of same sex marriage, equal treatment of all the people who make you cringe, and abortion).
    So, I have one directive for you all: Go Screw Yourselves.

  • Ax2root

    Kasich’s words exemplify fake ” Christian ” compassion BECAUSE he OPPOSES The WORD OF GOD

    Ephesians
    5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
    5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
    5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
    5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
    5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

    2 Timothy
    4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
    4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
    4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
    4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
    4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
    4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.