Legal Group Says John Kasich’s ‘Cupcake’ Remarks ‘Confuse’ Reality of Businesses Serving Homosexuals

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

A prominent religious liberties organization says that Republican presidential candidate John Kasich is confusing the issue that Christian-owned businesses are facing surrounding the matter of same-sex “marriage” by making a false assertion that some are refusing to sell cupcakes to persons who identify as homosexual.

As previously reported, during an event at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, Republican presidential candidate and Ohio Gov. John Kasich said that he doesn’t believe businesses have the same protections as churches, and that business owners should just “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,” he stated. “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.”

On Thursday, during the Republican presidential debate in Houston, co-moderator Hugh Hewitt asked Kasich about his “cupcake” statement and inquired if he could be trusted to protect religious liberty if elected. Kasich reiterated his sentiments and assertions.

“If you’re in the business of selling things, if you’re not going to sell to somebody you don’t agree with, okay, today I’m not going to sell someone who’s gay, and tomorrow maybe I won’t sell to somebody who’s divorced,” he said. “If you’re in the business of commerce, conduct commerce.”

“That’s my view, and if you don’t agree with their lifestyle, say a prayer for them when they leave and hope they change their behavior,” Kasich said.

But Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) says that Kasich’s statements are confused about the matter as no one is denying homosexuals cupcakes or refusing to serve those in a relationship with those of the same sex.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[He] seemed to confuse the [issue] with denying service to an entire class of persons based on a protected characteristic,” it wrote in a press release on Friday.

“There’s a crucial difference between declining to serve an entire class of persons regardless of what they request and declining to promote a message you disagree with regardless of who requests it,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco.

He explained that not one of the businesses fighting civil rights complaints refuse to serve homosexuals, and in reality, do serve them.

“All of the clients that ADF represents would agree that business owners should not decline service to an entire class of persons based on their sexual orientation, marital status, or any other protected status,” Tedesco. “They have all done business with people who have openly identified as LGBT.”

Tedesco again detailed that there is a difference between refusing to sell any product to an entire class of people, and declining forms of participation in an event or writing certain messages—no matter who makes the request.

“[O]ur clients, like all other people who create or promote messages, have the constitutionally protected freedom to decline to communicate ideas that conflict with their deepest convictions. This is a right we all enjoy, and if it is taken away from our clients, everyone else stands to lose it as well,” he said. “So while none of them would have a problem serving a person of any sexual orientation or marital status, they would have a problem with being forced, for example, to participate in a same-sex ceremony or with making a cake that says, ‘Divorce is great.’”

As previously reported, last April, a Kentucky court sided with a Christian screen printer who had been leveled with a discrimination complaint after he declined to print t-shirts for a “gay pride” event.

The Fayette Circuit Court ruled that Hands on Originals (HOO) was not guilty of discrimination as the company regularly does business with homosexuals, and owner Blaine Adamson’s decision not to print the shirts was not based on malice toward any person, but rather the message that the company would be forced to convey.

“The Commission … says that it is not trying to infringe on the constitutional rights of HOO, but is seeking only to have HOO ‘… treat everyone the same.’ Yet, HOO has demonstrated in this record that it has done just that. It has treated homosexual and heterosexual groups the same,” it declared.

The court noted that from 2010-2012 Hands on Originals declined 13 orders from various groups because of the message that was to be printed.

“Those print orders that were refused by HOO included shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video and shirts containing a violence-related message,” it explained. “There is further evidence in the Commission record that it is standard practice within the promotional printing industry to decline to print materials containing messages that the owners do not want to support.”

“Nonetheless, the Commission punished HOO for declining to print messages advocating sexual activity to which HOO and its owners strongly oppose on sincerely held religious grounds,” the court continued. “The Commission’s order substantially burdens HOO’s and its owners’ free exercise of religion, wherein the government punished HOO and its owners by its order for their sincerely held religious beliefs. This is contrary to established constitutional law.”


A special message from the publisher...

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

Print Friendly
  • Paige Turner

    We shouldn’t sell anything to homosexuals

    • Nick River

      Why not? What will happen if you try to sell something to a homosexual?

      • Paige Turner

        I thought that was the position here.

        That Christians shouldn’t serve anyone who disagrees with them.

        I may have missed something. Besides my teeth.

        • Nick River

          At the risk of sounding like a child (‘why oh why?!’) why ever not? Even Christians disagree amongst themselves over doctrine and biblical views. At this rate you won’t be serving anyone 🙂

      • BarkingDawg

        “What will happen if you try to sell something to a homosexual?

        You turn gay yourself.

        /s

  • sandra-paquette-

    This is what they believe they are entitled to their beliefs. Just like homosexuals if they chose to go down that road. That is their choice. There are all kinds of bake shops where you can order a wedding cake. But they always do this hit on the Christians and force their ways on a Christian. And it seems Christians have no rights, cause its always the homosexuals who sue for money and the law seems to go along with this. It is time that the law was changed and that they can not sue. This is just a means of getting big money and going after the Christians. And this is suppose to be for the Land of the Free – for whom I ask? Homosexuals

    • Nick River

      Actually, Sandra, what’s happening is that same-sex couples seeking marrriage are large enough in number that so many thousands of businesses are being approached to provide services for their nuptials. Inevitably (say 1% of them) is going to arrive at a business denying them service, and it’s this that hits the headlines. And yes you can sue if you are denied service because of who you are (which includes you by the way, Sandra!).

      • Reason2012

        They weren’t denied service because they’re homosexual, Nick. The bakers have always served professing homosexuals, no problem. They were denied their demand that the Christian instead support an anti-Christian ACT.

        Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

        I would hope not. The request is bigotry from the ones who sought him out to try forcing him to do so.

        Should a professing homosexual who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-homosexual ACT of “homosexuality is a sin” gathering?

        No. The request would also be bigotry from the ones who sought them out to try forcing them to do so.

        Likewise a Christian who has no problem serving professing homosexuals should not be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-Christian ACT of a same-gender or polygamous wedding, or other anti-Christian ACTS. The request is also bigotry from the ones making the request.

        • Guest

          How is someone’s wedding, consistent with their own beliefs, anti-anything?

          Christian couples have weddings and marriages regardless of ‘male or female’ all the time.

          The question is:

          Why is the business offering something to the public they will only sell to people of certain beliefs? The owners knew they couldn’t religiously discriminate against customers in a public offer before they opened their doors.

        • Nick River

          Do you think that the bakers ask a straight couple who want a cake for their wedding if either of them are divorcees? I doubt it!
          Do you think that a photographer taking pictures of a family ask if the children are born out of wedlock? I doubt it!
          Do you think that a florist selling a valentine’s bouquet to man with a wedding band on his finger will ask if it is for his wife or girlfriend? I DOUBT IT!

          Now do you see bigotry?
          Now do you see discrimination against gays?
          NOW do you see homophobia?

          Good.

          • Reason2012

            Do you think bakers asked them it it was for a same-gender wedding? I doubt it – homosexual activists like to proclaim it from the rooftop to make sure everyone knows (pride parades for example)

            If he just said he wanted a wedding cake, then no problem.

            The request was denied when the customer made it clear it was for a same-gender event.

            And hence if the customer feels the need to make sure the photographer, baker, florist knows these other details as well (divorcees, out of wedlock, polygamy), then they’ve now made the Christian knowing participants and hence they can deny the request.

            Do you see white men seeking out black bakers asking them to support anti-black events? No, that would be bigotry and discrimination.

            Do you see Christians seeking out homosexual bakers asking them to support anti-homosexual events? No, that would be bigotry and discrimination. (Although someone once tried this to get their point across and were denied).

            Now do you see the bigotry by these homosexual activists who DO do these things?
            Now do you see the discrimination against Christians by these homosexual activists?

            Thank you for posting.

    • Guest

      Sandra, the vast majority of Christian business owners are lawful people who don’t break the law and respect the right of their customers to not share their religious beliefs. And we know that most of these people have returned to businesses they had used before never suspecting the business was being run unlawfully.

      This ‘message’ meme the ADF are trying fails and has failed because if making a cake is a message, just about anything else is too. The deli owner could say they don’t make ‘jewish sandwiches’, or they don’t like the ‘message’ of serving blacks at the lunch counter.

      That is the real head scratcher – how can supposed Christians not realize that establishing a ‘right’ of religious discrimination in public business will most certainly come back around to bite them in the backside sooner than later. Once that Pandora’s box is open then where will it end? Can a business refuse entire groups of people because of the ‘message’ that would send? Refuse to hire them because of that ‘message’?

      Either the business sells things as the law requires or they shouldn’t be offering those things for sale, its really pretty simple.

    • sandra-paquette-

      You, know I have re-thought my answer and River and Guest you are right your in business and really its a golden opportunity for Satan to attack. I don’t think God is going to judge you because you sold a homosexual a cake. You may not agree with it and may not believe in it totally but, you are running a business and what else can I say.

      • Guest

        That was quite kind of you. I would like to point out there are a several ways a business could sell wedding services to just people of certain faiths, the business owner just has to bother to do so. This isn’t about ‘forcing’ anyone to sell something they aren’t comfortable selling. It’s about respecting the civil rights of everyone – the business doesn’t have to offer anything to the public they don’t want to sell but the customer can accept that freely made offer regardless of their religion, race, ethnicity, sexes, or sexual orientation. The business owner making the offer knew all of that before they made it.

      • Reason2012

        Sandra, they’re not being refused service because they are homosexual – the bakers serve homosexuals no problem. So the comparison to a doctor refusing to help him because he’s homosexual is false.

        The issue is they are instead demanding the Christian support an anti-Christian ACT.

        Should a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

        No. The request is bigotry from the ones who sought him out to try forcing him to do so.

        Should a professing homosexual who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-homosexual ACT of “homosexuality is a sin” gathering?

        No. The request would also be bigotry from the ones who sought them out to try forcing them to do so.

        Likewise a Christian who has no problem serving professing homosexuals should not be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-Christian ACT of a same-gender or polygamous wedding, or other anti-Christian ACTS. The request is also bigotry from the ones making the request.

    • Becky

      They’ll never go to a US Muslim business. Homosexual activist groups know they’re not an easy target.

      • Sheri

        Bullies and cowards, indeed.

    • acontraryview

      “Just like homosexuals if they chose to go down that road.”

      What road is it you think homosexuals are choosing to go down?

      “But they always do this hit on the Christians”

      Are you suggesting that they are purposely targeting Christian businesses? If so, what is your basis for that assertion?

      “and force their ways on a Christian.”

      What “ways’ are being forced on Christians?

      “And it seems Christians have no rights”

      What rights do you believe non-Christians have that Christians do not?

      “It is time that the law was changed and that they can not sue.”

      You are certainly free to work to overturn laws that provide protections regarding public accommodations based upon sexuality. They are relatively uncommon in the US. In most places a business owner is free to turn away a patron based upon the person’s sexuality.

      “This is just a means of getting big money”

      What “big money” are you talking about?

      “And this is suppose to be for the Land of the Free – for whom I ask? Homosexuals”

      How are homosexuals more free in our nation than heterosexuals?

  • BarkingDawg

    WHINE!!!!!

    Give it up, already. Your bigotry against gays is heading into the dumpster of history.

  • SFBruce

    The comparison to Hands on Originals is flawed. From all the reports I’ve read regarding Melissa Klein, and other bakers and florists who’ve turned away gay couples, there was no stated objection to a specific decoration or message the couple requested. Instead, the baker or florist refused to sell the exact product and/or service to a same sex couple which they sell every day to heterosexual couples.

    • Guest

      And the Hands on Originals case has been appealed – it will likely be over turned. The shirt just advertised the festival, if the ‘meta’ message of a message is grounds for refusal of service it would basically makes just about anything refusable.

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    There are plenty of Chr-stian bakers who have provided wedding cakes to gay couples. One does not have to be a hateful bigot to be a Chr-stian.

  • FoJC_Forever

    The homosexual spammers, hackers, and stalkers have been rejuvenated. Their lord Satan has sent a new wave of wicked power to entice them to berate and harass those who won’t accept their lust as normal and good. The filling up of sin continues, and those who fall prey to their deceptions are those who have rejected Truth.

    Judgement is coming.

    • FoJC_Forever

      They just hacked my connection too. Stay aware Christian. These people are ruthless and have no problem breaking any law to steal your rights and stalk you online or in person.

      Guard your children. These people are predators and will violate them if they get the opportunity.

  • Michael C

    Let’s see if I’m understanding this correctly. Baking a cupcake is simply commerce, but baking a tiered cake with white frosting is a religious sacrament.

    Perhaps this issue would be alleviated by not offering religious sacraments to the general public for money.

    A business owner could cease offering sacrament cakes entirely or they could only sell them through contracted churches or religious venues (to ensure that only those who meet the bakers religious guidelines can purchase the sacrament cakes).

    • Ambulance Chaser

      That wouldn’t work. That would probably just be religious discrimination (offering contracts based on religion).

      You’d have to only offer cakes as part of a religious ministry that isn’t business related and has exclusive membership.

      • Guest

        Private clubs and non-profits are allowed to find those they wish to associate first and then make just those identified members the invitation to do business. Like the Boy Scouts, you can’t wander in off the street and say you want to get the cooking merit badge, you have to be a member first and only they are offered the opportunity to do so.

        What a business can’t do is invite the public to do business and then do their ‘association’ culling after the customers respond if it involves refusing them because of their civil rights class.

      • Michael C

        I believe it could be done. If the Hitching Post can become a religious corporation, I’m sure a baker could figure out the same thing.

        I’m not terribly smart about these kinds of things but I believe that a business can qualify as a religious corporation (and become exempt from civil rights laws) if their primary purpose is religious and any of their products and services are for religious purpose.

        A standard public accommodation wouldn’t be permitted to religiously discriminate, but a religious corporation that only offered sacrament cakes for religious purpose (wedding cakes), and never offered non-religious items, would be permitted to discriminate.

        I’m guessing that the wedding cake business would have to be the entire business or at least an entirely separate entity from a storefront.

  • Georgie Franklin

    This is just silly. Who cares about cupcakes? The real issue is second class citizenship. So I go to buy a house and the agent says “Sorry I’m a Christian”. I go to a Peditrician and she says “Sorry I’m a Christian”(which really happened). I try to get my taxes done “Sorry I’m a Christian”. If you serve the public you serve them all!

  • Reason2012

    Should a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

    No. The request is bigotry from the ones making the request.

    Likewise a Christian who has no problem serving professing homosexuals should not be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-Christian ACT of a same-gender or polygamous wedding, or other anti-Christian ACTS. The request is also bigotry from the ones making the request.

    • acontraryview

      Your analogies are flawed.

      The black baker would be free to not bake such a cake. Personal viewpoints are not a covered category. He would not be declining the order because the customer was white. Now, if the black baker took an order from a black person who ordered such a cake, or a hispanic person who ordered such a cake, but refused an order from a white person requesting such a cake, then it would be an issue. Otherwise, it would not. The same holds true for your example of a homosexual baker.

      None of your examples involve bigotry on the part of the person placing the oder.

      • Reason2012

        Your analogies are flawed. The black baker would be free to not bake such a cake. Personal viewpoints are not a covered category.

        False. Religion is as protected as race is by our Constitution.

        • acontraryview

          Please cite where in the Constitution race and religion are protected as relates to public accommodation.

        • Guest

          You are confusing an ideology with a religious belief. Ideologies aren’t protected except in a few city ordinances. You want to run a business that only serves registered Democrats you are 100% able to do so in most locals. You want to not sell to an ‘anti-choice’ group, you are free to refuse them.

        • David & Jonathan

          Are you a muslim? are these muslim bakers? Because true Christians would be happy to bake the cake, as they know that their gospel is pro homosexuality, with examples of same sex marriages between David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi as examples….

          • Reason2012

            examples of same sex marriages between David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi as examples….

            Please cite the verse where David and Jonathan get married.
            Please cite the verse where Ruth and Naomi get married.

            David actually married women.
            Ruth helped Naomi marry Boaz.

            All you’re doing is showing everyone else how anti-Christian the typical homosexual activist is, and for that I thank you.

          • David & Jonathan

            David was married to both Jonathan and the Daughter of Saul. That is why Saul says to David that he is his son in law twice…

            The relationship between David and Jonathan…

            1 samuel 18: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

            2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.

            3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

            4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

            The arguments regarding verse 1, 3 and 4 are quite self explaining.

            Now lets look at verse 2 and compare it with your Genesis 2:24

            24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mothers house, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

            Exactly the same wording. This is how it was called in those days. If you got married, the man would leave the house of his father to live with his wive (or husband in this case). We are seeing a marriage alike bonding here.

            That is confirmed later by Saul in verse 21 (after Saul has offered Merab his daughter to David as well):

            21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.

            The above is the literal translation of the original text. Modern translations have added “one in the” before “in the twain” because the translators were to uncomfortable with the original. A typical example of prejudice of translators.

            What does it say? David is married twice to a child of Saul.

            And then move to 1 Samuel 20:

            30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

            We know from leviticus 18 already that nakedness refers to sexual relationships.

            What saul is saying is that Jonathan is parading himself publicly in a way that is like that of a woman who is searching for a male lover. He doesn’t compare Jonathans nakedness with a man’s nakedness but with the shame of a woman. Jonathan was not only called a woman by Saul, but also a whore, the maximum insult he could make.

            And then we come to verse 20:41-42:

            And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of the place toward the south, and fell on his face on the ground, and bowed himself three times, and they kissed one another, and wept one another, until David EXCEEDED.

            The original hebrew word is GADAL, which means to become large. Basically the text says, they kissed another and David became large.

            And then finally II Samuel 1:26

            I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan, very pleasant hast thou been unto me, thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of woman.

            First of all, there was not such a thing as platonic love of woman at that time. Basically you can read this as “your love for me was wonderful, and better than the sex with woman”.

            The above doesn’t mean that David was 100% homosexual. It was a typical male-male relationship as we also have seen in Rome. The men having sex with each other, besides having a normal marriage for creating a linage…

            David and Jonathan were bi-sexual lovers.

          • Reason2012

            David was married to both Jonathan and the Daughter of Saul.

            Yet no verse says David was married to Jonathan. Why is that?

            That is why Saul says to David that he is his son in law twice…

            If he said it three times does that mean he got married three times? What about four? More twisting of scripture.

            The relationship between David and Jonathan… 1 Samuel 18 .. The arguments regarding verse 1, 3 and 4 are quite self explaining.

            Only to those trying to promote homsoexuality in the Bible.

            (1) It doesn’t say they got married. It just shows they had a brotherly love for each other, like brothers in Christ do today.

            (2) They both had a love for God and hence had a brotherly love for each other, not a homosexual love for each other.

            Now lets look at verse 2 and compare it with your Genesis 2:24 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mothers house, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Exactly the same wording.

            Please cite where David “cleaved unto Jonathan” let alone “cleaved unto his husband, Jonathan”. There’s no such verse.

            This is how it was called in those days. If you got married, the man would leave the house of his father to live with his wive (or husband in this case).

            It was SAUL, not Jonathan, that took him to live with him after what he did to Golaith.

            Read the verse before the ones you quoted, that you ignored:

            “And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.”
            1 Samuel 17:58

            That is confirmed later by Saul in verse 21 (after Saul has offered Merab his daughter to David as well): “Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.”

            False.

            And once your’e a son-in-law, you’re a son-in-law – you’re not one “twice” or a father-in-law “twice” or anything else “twice”, which further rebukes your claim.

            Read verses 22 and 23 after the one you’ve twisted: Saul’s trying to convinced David to BE his son-in-law by marrying his daughter. According to you he should already BE his son-in-law for “marrying” Jonathan, which again exposes the lie that they were married.

            “And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king’s son in law. And Saul’s servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king’s son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?”
            1 Samuel 18:22-23

            And then move to 1 Samuel 20: 30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

            He’s rebuking Jonathan for his perverse thoughts. Doesn’t prove they were married as you demand it means.

            And then we come to verse 20:41-42: And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of the place toward the south, and fell on his face on the ground, and bowed himself three times, and they kissed one another, and wept one another, until David EXCEEDED. The original hebrew word is GADAL, which means to become large. Basically the text says, they kissed another and David became large.

            Seriously? You’re claiming the Hebrew word gâdal means he got an erection? Wow. Just wow.

            That word is used 115 times in the OT and it’s never used to point out someone got an erection. That word is translated “make thy name great” (Gen 12:2) “the cry of them is waxen great” (Gen 19:3) “and thou has magnified” (Gen 19:19) “I will be greater” (Gen 41:40)”be much set” (1 Sam 26:24) “greater” (1 Kin 1:47) and much more.

            For you to pretend it means he got an erection is only you projecting your need for it to say so.

            They had a bond in Christ – in God – it’s that simple. Jonathan magnified and raised up David in name and this was no different.

            And then finally II Samuel 1:26 .. First of all, there was not such a thing as platonic love of woman at that time.

            Your claims center around the claim there’s “no such thing as plantonic love”. But there IS such a thing, also between men as brotherly love.

            And even Jesus said
            “These things I command you, that ye love one another.”
            John 15:17

            David and Jonathan were bi-sexual lovers.

            You haven’t shown them to get married – I rebuked your claim that he was a son-in-law due to Jonathan when Saul was still trying to GET him to be his son-in-law. And you only offer twisted reasons why you want to claim they were having homosexual relations.

            Furthermore, using your logic, Jesus’ command to love one another and:

            “Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.”
            1 Thessalonians 5:26

            would mean “all Christians are bi-sexual lovers”, and it would be just as much of an anti-Christian farce.

            In the end, it’s God you’ll have to convince he’s ok with homosexual behavior, not men. And all you offer are twisted reasons, similar to how you’d have to twist what Jesus said and what’s written about greeting with a holy kiss to pretend all Christians are likewise.

            And by the way, on top of it all you fail to consider there is MUCH sin that is shown in the Bible. It’s not shown to condone it, but to show the consequences of it. Because the people of sodom were having homosexual sex does that mean God condones it because He pointed it out in the Bible? No, he wrote about it to show how it was the biggest reason He judged them all.

            I would think again.

  • acontraryview

    I’m unclear what could be confusing about his statement. It seems very clear. if you operate a business in a location where sexuality is a covered category you cannot refuse to provide products you offer based upon the sexuality of the customer. It really couldn’t be any simpler.

  • Josey

    If I own a tee shirt shop and was requested to print out shirts for a homosexual pride event parade or whatever, the message would support that agenda and I would have to decline and that is not prejudice against them but is in line with my living my faith out 24/7, it is the message that says I support it, has nothing to do with a plain shirt or cupcakes or even a wedding cake with no message, the problem is in the message, these bakers sold goods to this lesbian couple that didn’t have messages on them with no problem…I don’t see why there is such a lack of common sense today, maybe common core has dumbed down the kids and the pc crowd don’t even get me started, they are insane. “oh, he hurt my feelings, blah, blah blah ” Sounds like a whole bunch of babies on the playground, grow up! The political correctness crowd and Common Core needs to find the door and return no more! HA!