Illinois Bed and Breakfast Ordered to Pay $80,000 for Declining to Host ‘Gay’ Civil Union Ceremony

Timber CreekSPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The owners of a bed and breakfast in Illinois have been ordered to pay $80,000 after they declined to host a civil union ceremony for two homosexual men on the premises, and have been mandated to facilitate a celebration for the men at their facility within one year.

TimberCreek Bed and Breakfast in Paxton, Illinois is “an upscale Christian country bed and breakfast,” according to its website, and is situated in the midst of a small farming community. Owners Jim and Beth Walder also host church retreats, baby and bridal showers, business meetings and other events at the facility.

In 2011, Todd Wathen contacted TimberCreek via email to inquire if the bed and breakfast would be hosting civil union ceremonies after Illinois approved the unions that year via the “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.” Jim Walder replied that the facility had no such plans, and advised Wathen that “homosexuality is immoral and unnatural,” and that “it’s not too late to change your behavior.”

Three days later, Wathen filed a discrimination complaint with the Illinois Human Rights Commission. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ACLU) also soon became involved and sought emotional damages for Wathen and his partner, Mark.

Now, Michael Robinson, an administrative law judge appointed by the Commission, has ordered Walder to pay $30,000 in damages to the men ($15,000 each), as well as $50,000 in attorney’s fees and more than $1,200 in costs.

Robinson also mandated that Walder follow the Illinois Human Rights Act by not declining further events, and that he additionally host Wathen’s celebration at the bed and breakfast within one year. The two men held a ceremony in their yard in 2011 after being declined; they did not seek other facilities as alternatives.

“We are very happy that no other couple will have to experience what we experienced by being turned away and belittled and criticized for who we are,” Wathen told reporters this week. “In addition, the monetary award represents a recognition by the judge that Mark and I suffered a real harm—that we were embarrassed and humiliated.”

  • Connect with Christian News

However, in a statement issued to the Ford County Record, Walder has stated that he cannot comply with the order.

“To be absolutely clear, we cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the Illinois Human Rights Commission,” he said. “Our policy will not be changing.”

Walders
The Walders

“We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God’s word, and when the heavy hand of government tries to force us as Christians to embrace sinful behavior, we have a moral obligation to resist and stand for biblical truth,” Walder stated, quoting from Acts 5:29, which reads, “It is better to obey God than men.”

TimberCreek’s website further outlines that the Walders hold no malice toward those who identify as homosexuals, but that they cannot be personal participants and facilitators of other men’s sins.

“It is not an issue of fairness or equality, but an issue of right and wrong. We cannot be part of what God condemns,” it states. “Be assured that we are not lawless, hateful, judgmental, bigoted, or activists by any definition. We did not initiate the present controversy. We are not the ones who voted to change the 6,000 year-old definition of marriage. We are just small business owners trying to be consistent in following God’s word and living it out practically in our lives.”

“[The homosexual agenda] uses anti-discrimination laws as a bully club when dissenting Americans disagree with men trying to marry men, women marrying women, men changing to women, and women changing to men,” the site reads. “It basically says that God is confused by marriage, family and sexuality and that we need to correct His mistakes.”


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
  • Josey

    Thank you for the example you are setting by obeying God above man, God bless your family and He will keep you in peace and keep you all strong and all that follow the only Way that is found in Christ alone, in Jesus Name.

    • gizmo23

      They will have to give in or their business is doomed

      • Guest

        Or just don’t rent out for weddings at all.

        • gizmo23

          That would also be a solution

          • Guest

            what a B&B in Vermont did.

        • Gary Metzger

          Wrong. Let the gays seek out places who WILL accommodate them, instead of forcing someone to violate their conscience.

          • Guest

            No one forced the business to offer wedding events rentals and they knew they would have to accommodate the general public that responded while respecting their civil rights, most certainly in their right to believe that couples of all sexes can wed.

          • Gary Metzger

            This business didn’t sign on to host gay weddings, and you know that. And gays hardly are interested in traditional marriage. They’ve always been about pushing the envelope of the sexual revolution, and their own reps have said the idea of gay “marriage” is actually to destroy the institution as its traditionally been defined, replacing it with whatever you want it to be. It says a lot about their depraved character that they would take this action, and believe me, they’re making a ton of enemies by using these tactics.

          • Guest

            Well with so many straw men there’s no room for discussion.

            Oh and the only age group that doesn’t have majority support for marriage equality is the +65 year old group and that’s a self-limiting one.

            Sorry the business knew they couldn’t engage in religious discrimination even back in 2011.

          • acontraryview

            “and their own reps have said the idea of gay “marriage” is actually to destroy the institution as its traditionally been defined, replacing it with whatever you want it to be.”

            What “reps” would those be? How does opening marriage to two citizens of the same gender result in marriage between a man and a woman being “destroyed”.

            “It says a lot about their depraved character that they would take this action”

            So you believe that holding people accountable to the law is “depraved”?

          • infowolf1

            if the law supports depravity the law is depraved. people are weak minded, and while the idea of institution is worldly if it is allowed to include this then people who think the law is about right and wrong will think its okay.

          • acontraryview

            “if the law supports depravity the law is depraved.”

            Depravity is matter of personal opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter.

            What do you think is “depraved” about anti-discrimination laws?

          • Gary Metzger

            What discriminatory laws? Gays can still get married, and they can still find plenty of places who will host their false ideas of what marriage is. They have always been about sexual liberation. This isn’t about discrimination, it’s about destroying Christian ethics and values, and YOU know that.

          • acontraryview

            “What discriminatory laws?”

            I didn’t ask about discriminatory laws. I asked about anti-discrimination laws.

            “This isn’t about discrimination, it’s about destroying Christian ethics and values”

            How do anti-discrimination laws destroy Christian ethics and values? Are you not free to hold to whatever ethics and values you care to?

            “and YOU know that.”

            No, I do not know that, since it isn’t true.

          • Gary Metzger

            Um, NO, I’m NOT free to hold to whatever ethics and values I care to in this anti-Christian climate. The article this thread is proof of that. I’m not free because if I can’t practice those ethics and values, than freedom doesn’t exist.

          • acontraryview

            What ethics and values are not your allowed to hold to? What ethics and values are you not allowed to practice and in what way are you not allowed to practice them?

          • Blaylock

            This is US law. Do you think your holy man gives you the ability to be above the law? Nope. And again, nobody is trying to vanquish marriage except maybe alabama. keep sticking to the right wing talking points

          • Gary Metzger

            Actually, YES, the law of my “holy man” is above any law that forces me to sin.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Which is fine, as long as you’re prepared to accept the earthly consequences for doing so.

          • Blaylock

            they are a business open to the public

          • scotty501

            who’s the rep gary?? LOL waiting for your answer!!! foolish dolt

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “their own reps”?

            What? Who are those? Do you actually think, whoever they are, that they speak for ALL 9 million or so gay people in the country?

          • acontraryview

            “instead of forcing someone to violate their conscience.”

            They aren’t “forced”. They have the choice to not rent out their facility for weddings.

          • infowolf1

            either stop renting for weddings or accept gay weddings, they are being forced to not rent for weddings or to accept gay weddings.

          • acontraryview

            Part of owning a business is the decision as to whether or not the owner is willing to abide by the laws that govern the operation of a business. If they are not, then they are free to decide not to operate a business or to operate the business in a manner that is consistent with the law. The choice is theirs – they are not “forced”. Being “forced” to do something is when you have no option not to do it. That is not the case here.

          • Blaylock

            When individuals go into business, they do so with the up front knowledge of business laws. They broke non-discrimination laws and should be punished accordingly

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So you want to bring back “separate but equal” and Jim Crow laws?

          • Gary Metzger

            What an offense to the black community. African Americans are a separate race and were denied service EVERYWHERE simply because they were black. That is not the case here at all. Homosexuals are NOT a separate ethnicity, and are NOT denied service for all normative business services. The same Christian restaurant owner gladly serves all who enter the doors of their restaurant. Wedding receptions, however, are in a different category entirely. It doesn’t matter to me if you agree or not. There is no discrimination here. Gays can find plenty of places that will cater their wedding. Doctors don’t have to perform abortions. Pharmacists can be discriminatory of what products they put on their shelves. Photographers don’t have to photograph porn shoots. So too here. Your claims of discrimination are simply out of line and patently untrue.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I didn’t even say sexuality is the same as race. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t. Think about it this way: Let’s say I ran a bakery, and refused to serve Christian weddings, but served other weddings, because that conflicted with my beliefs. Are you going to tell me that’s not discrimination?

    • [email protected]

      so tell me where exactly does God say that we must refuse to provide a business service to someone who is seen as being in sin? the claim is that this is necessary to obey God and yet where is the instruction from God to refuse service in these cases?

      • Samuel F Waddell

        EPHESIANS 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
        (This is one and there are more but this should be enough)

        • Cady555

          Did the couple confirm that every corporation that held a business meeting at their facility complied with all biblical precepts? Did the couple know for sure that no heterosexual sexual couple married there planned to have an open marriage? Did the couple request DNA tests before a baby shower to prove the baby wasn’t conceived in adultery?

          The couple chose to flaunt their holiness by rejecting members of a disliked minority.

          This is about prejudice and hate. They need to obey the law just like everyone else.

  • Amos Moses

    “To be absolutely clear, we cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the Illinois Human Rights Commission,” he said. “Our policy will not be changing.”

    “We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God’s word, and when the heavy hand of government tries to force us as Christians to embrace sinful behavior, we have a moral obligation to resist and stand for biblical truth,” Walder stated, quoting from Acts 5:29, which reads, “It is better to obey God than men.”

    Amen!!!!!

    • gizmo23

      How many fines can they pat before the business goes under. They are now a target

      • Amos Moses

        Who cares………. not the point…… The ones suing are all cry bullies, and they deserve to be turned down. We are not to bend to their follies. There is always a cost for doing what is right.

        • gizmo23

          Sure it’s not your business so why care about them?

        • scotty501

          Amos legally you are wrong but you can keep babbling

        • acontraryview

          “The ones suing are all cry bullies”

          So you believe that holding a business accountable to the law results in one being a “cry bully”? How so?

          “and they deserve to be turned down.”

          Why?

    • [email protected]

      if they want to continue to violate the law then they can prepare to be hit with more fines and penalties. First off the bible says nothing about refusing to provide a business service to someone who is seen as being in sin so this is not about choosing between God and men. secondly if they are unable to provide the business service they can always get out of the business and avoid having to deal with the issue. but they can not continue to operate in violation of the law without penalty.

      • Oboehner

        Why do sexual deviants have rights, yet anyone else (even when protected specifically by the Constitution) have none?

        • [email protected]

          who does not have rights here? if the business had turned away a couple becasue they were christian or becasue they were an inter-racial couple, or becasue they were heterosexual the exact same protections would have come into play. so same-sex couple are protected under the same protections that exist for others.

          on the other hand there is nothing in the Constitution that allows business that offer a service to the public to discriminate.

          • Amos Moses

            “on the other hand there is nothing in the Constitution that allows business that offer a service to the public to discriminate.”

            Gee, this guy did, maybe we should go after him for refusing service to a customer. What do you say?

            Store Owner Praised for Refusing Gun Sale to Suspected Mass Shooter.
            breitbart. (Remove this space) com/big-government/2016/03/28/store-owner-praised-for-refusing-gun-sale-to-would-be-mass-shooter/

          • [email protected]

            That was not illegal discrimination because of a personal characteristic but rather a gun store owner suspecting that something was off with a potential customer and taking precautions becasue of that. not at all comparable. now if the store owner had say refused to sell the gun to someone becasue they were a christian, a woman, ect, then it would be comparable.

          • Amos Moses

            “That was not illegal discrimination because of a personal characteristic but rather a gun store owner suspecting that something was off with a potential customer and taking precautions because of that”

            No, he refused service to a customer for what he might do….. same circumstances….. See, you cannot properly apply your own standard because it is flawed. He is in business and therefore has no ability to judge how his business is used. That is the standard you are setting forth.

            Monumentally flawed and asinine.

          • [email protected]

            no it is very much a flawed analogy but here lets look at one that is more applicable. lets say that there is a bed and breakfast and the owners have a religious objection to the mixing of the races. do you think that they should be able to turn away the inter-racial couple and cite their religious objection as a reason to deny service?

          • Amos Moses

            “lets say that there is a bed and breakfast and the owners have a religious objection to the mixing of the races.”

            Nothing in scripture about that.

            “do you think that they should be able to turn away the inter-racial couple and cite their religious objection as a reason to deny service?”

            Yes, they can deny service to anyone, but there is no relationship between race and deviant sex. Now another man-woman couple could be involved in deviant sex, but it is not apparent. But two men or two women, painfully obvious. Especially when the goal they are presenting is a defilement of the sanctity of marriage and they are asking the service provider to participate.

          • [email protected]

            well at least you are consistent in the belief that the business owners should be allowed to deny service to anyone. the problem is that the law can not fully protect both the business ability to refuse service to anyone and the customers ability to access those business services without facing discrimination. In many states the law has chosen to give protections to customers protecting them from discrimination. you may not agree with those laws but they do exist and business owners must follow them or face the penalty. so your beef is with these laws in general as these protections in this case are just part of that larger system.

          • Amos Moses

            So the law is wrong………………….. So what?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            In America you have the freedom to believe whatever you want. What you don’t have is the freedom to act on that belief.

          • Amos Moses

            “In America you have the freedom to believe whatever you want. What you don’t have is the freedom to act on that belief.”

            Then neither do you and your sham homosexual marriages. Or do you think it does not cut the other way. Most fascists think the law does not apply to them. Guess that would be you.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            No such thing as a legal “sham” marriage.

            Yes, it cuts both ways. If I own a wedding venue, and advertise it as such, then I am obligated to offer the same service to both homosexual and heterosexual customers.

          • Amos Moses

            “No such thing as a legal “sham” marriage.”

            Sorry Charlie, but God does not recognize sham homosexual marriages.

          • Luke Sulla

            True. The marriage must include both sham and duvet or it’s not acceptable.

          • Amos Moses

            Good one………thnx.

          • scotty501

            so what?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Sorry, Bernice, but I didn’t seek your deity’s opinion.

          • Amos Moses

            It is not an opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,, well yours is,,,,,,

          • acontraryview

            Unless you are God, Amos, you cannot say that with 100% certainty. Are you God, Amos?

          • Amos Moses

            So you have no real argument…….you just want to question God…………… we have Gods word which is God, and it is 100% certain.

          • acontraryview

            “we have Gods word which is God”

            You have chosen to believe that the Bible contains God’s word. Because you have chosen to believe something does not make it definitively true. The only way to be 100% certain of what God’s views are would require that you ARE God. So, I’ll ask again: Are you God, Amos?

          • Amos Moses

            Because you have not chosen to believe something does not make it definitively not true.

            “The only way to be 100% certain of what God’s views are would require that you ARE God.”

            Or that He told us, and it was written down. Sort of like when you go to court and they have a record of what was said.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Growing up in my small Southern town, I recall that some white people felt that the loss of a black child was not really tragic because black families tended to have so many children. Your reasoning reminded me of that.

          • Amos Moses

            Anyone who has to lie to themselves that homosexuals are “good and normal and healthy” has no rational thoughts to make paying them any attention to what they think is right or wrong has any validity. A reprobate mind. A double minded man is unstable in ALL his ways.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m sorry, are you arguing that same sex marriage is not legal? Because that’s clearly and demonstrably false.

          • Amos Moses

            Its is against Gods law, so no, it is not demonstrable. Even in the states it is not demonstrable, except for the 3-4 states that have legalized it. Despite what the SCOTUS has “ruled”.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I know that’s the way you’d like to think our government works, but it isn’t. Same sex couples have been getting married in every state since July.

          • Amos Moses

            So what? It is still not a law in any state except 3-4 who actually passed it.

          • acontraryview

            You seem to be under the mistaken impression that laws are necessary for something to be allowed. That is false. Laws are in place to disallow things. In the absence of a law disallowing something, any action is legal, as it does not violate the law. Since there are no enforceable laws that disallow two people of the same gender from entering into civil marriage, it is legal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage in every state.

          • Amos Moses

            Whose law?

          • acontraryview

            Civil law, which is the only issue under discussion.

          • Amos Moses

            No, it is not. This is a CHRISTIAN site and GOD is ALWAYS on the table, as is HIS law.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Uh, no. That’s not how our country works.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes, actually that is how it works. You can make a right on red in many states but not all states.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The Supreme Court has not ruled that laws banning right on red are unconstitutional.

          • Amos Moses

            Laws differ between states…………………. We are not talking about the SCOTUS.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Same sex marriage laws do NOT “differ between states.” SCOTUS has ruled. It’s irrelevant that you don’t want to talk about a Supreme Court ruling, because that’s what is at the core of this.

          • Amos Moses

            SCOTUS has no authority to alter what has been defined by God. They ruled many times slavery was ok……… So you support SCOTUS on those things also? Dred Scott?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            When did I ever reference what I support or do not support? I am not the topic of conversation here.

            I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you. Obviously I don’t support slavery or the Fugitive Slave law, but I wouldn’t have pretended that it wasn’t law back in 1830.

          • Amos Moses

            Has nothing to do with “pretending”. It has do do with what is right and what is wrong and taking a stand. But all you are spouting is SCOTUS said this or that not whether it is right or wrong. So you ARE the topic of conversation and your views.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, then, you admit that public accommodation non-discrimination laws are Constitutional?

          • Amos Moses

            So you admit that you are not interested in right vs. wrong and are therefore amoral?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes. Now answer my question.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It doesn’t matter to him if they’re constitutional or not. “God’s law” (which people have NEVER interpreted in different ways, of course, oh no) takes precedence over the Constitution for him.

          • acontraryview

            “Most fascists think the law does not apply to them.”

            What law are you suggesting that “fascists” believe does not apply to them?

          • Amos Moses

            Follow the thread.

          • acontraryview

            I have been.

            I’ll ask again: What law are you suggesting that “fascists” believe does not apply to them?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Reminds me of the old Southern myth that black parents don’t love their children as much as white parents love theirs.

          • Amos Moses

            Reminds me of the myth that homosexuality is “good and normal and healthy”……………

          • [email protected]

            if you think that the law is wrong an that business should be able to discriminate against whomever they want they you are free to advocate for the law to change. these business owners can even break the law to make a statement if they wish but if they do they will face the penalty for that. see most people don’t favor completely removing non-discrimination protections like you do. as I said before your position is consistent and I do respect that consistency.

          • Amos Moses

            Again,,,, So What?

          • [email protected]

            The so what is simply this: #1 if they feel that law is wrong and that they must make a stand against it then they can do that but any spin that paints them as the victim here is false.

            #2 the claim that this is something that they must do is fundamental flawed becasue it claims that providing a business service equates to approving of whatever the person is doing that involves that business service. this claim wrongly conflates a business exchange of service for a set payment with personal approval which the gay couples are not seeking here.

          • acontraryview

            “So the law is wrong”

            How so?

          • Amos Moses

            So is it or is it not ok if a pedophile 40 yer old dates and has sex with a 12 year old if it is “legal”?

            Afterall, if it is not, then that is age discrimination and you are a pedophile-aphobe.

            Or do you hold the view that all law is ok? Was Dred Scott right or wrong? Was slavery wrong? It was all law……………So?

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask again:

            “So the law is wrong”

            How so?

          • Amos Moses

            It violates Gods law and so IS NOT law.

          • mrpoohead

            Law of land more important – few nations are not secular. And the Bible does not cover all possible scenarios, thus we have the law.

            Equally; it does not violate God’s law. there is one mention in the First Testament and in the second one Jesus seems to embrace even more “liberal” ideals. Forgiveness and acceptance – here’s my attitude, I work in a popular gay male industry, means there’s lots more girls for me, so why care? Both Testaments repeatedly embrace a social responsibility attitude which is conveniently forgotten by all and a few “issues” are cherry-picked by a minority. Bigots!

          • Amos Moses

            IF… we lived only by the law of the bible….. we would not need other law… we would not need the police….. we would not need locks on our doors… or many of the other things for our safety.

          • mrpoohead

            Then we can forgive LBGT then and let them be what they want to be. One could also visit the abortion clinic without being harassed.

          • Amos Moses

            A.) It is not our forgiveness that they need. They have offended God.
            2.) It is not up to us to ” let them be what they want to be.” They are a harm to themselves and others. Especially children. So, no….
            C.) Murder is murder, the Size, Location, Environment, or Dependence of the victim does not excuse it and once again, it is not ours to forgive nor do they need our forgiveness, they have offended God. So, NO!

          • mrpoohead

            A/ God is their judge , not you
            B/ How and why
            C/ God’s judgement

            Obviously you think you are God. God is the judge not you – you are a bigot, not a Christian.

            Being socially responsible has way more prevalence in the Bible than anything else – well the US has seriously forgotten that one.

            I see you gave up with the Allah/God debacle – I am right; nah, nah, nah!

          • Amos Moses

            “A/ God is their judge , not you”…and God has already judged it as sin.

            “B/ How and why” They will die much sooner due to the activity they participate in, if not from AIDS, then drug abuse, cancer or suicide. They make children believe that what they are is ok, and they are not ok.

            “C/ God’s judgement” and again….God has already judged it as sin.

            “Obviously you think you are God. ” Obviously you do not know what you are talking about…………….

            “Being socially responsible has way more prevalence in the Bible than anything else”

            Chapter and verse………………………

          • mrpoohead

            A/ Errrrrrrr, no
            B/ Don’t think any of the above are restricted to anyone. Well as long as what the kids want to do is legal and safe, I think I’ll go with well adjusted rather than “stuff up’s”
            C/ Eeeeerrrrrrrrrr, no again

            The whole damned lot. Nice to neighbours, spreading the “love”……………

          • Amos Moses

            ERROR, ERROR, ERROR……………..

          • mrpoohead

            Obviously not.

          • Ganesha_akbar

            “you are a bigot”, he judged.

            Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

          • 0pus37

            Troll

          • mrpoohead

            Punctuation!

          • mrpoohead

            You got deleted – nah, nah, nah!

          • acontraryview

            If it’s not law then it can’t be wrong, can it?

          • Amos Moses

            Men can pass a law that says they may drive their car on the ceiling of their home or anyones home. It has no validity…………it violates Gods law.

          • acontraryview

            Where in the Bible does it say that it is a sin to drive a car on the ceiling of one’s home or anyones home?

          • Amos Moses

            So just completely over your head………………….

          • acontraryview

            So driving your car on the ceiling doesn’t violate God’s law? You said above that it did.

          • Amos Moses

            Gravity IS part of Gods law…He declared it, He invented….He invented all things in the universe. There are consequences for violating that law as there are for ALL His laws.

            Or did you miss that episode?

          • acontraryview

            You are certainly free to choose to believe as you like.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Whether or not you find anything in “scripture” to support something is irrelevant unless you are the business owner in question.

            Again you equate race to the behavior of race-mixing. They are two separate things. Back in the ’60s, my grandfather did not relish the notion of both blacks and whites using his gas station restroom that had previously been reserved for whites only. He sold plenty of gas to black customers and had no problem with black customers. His beef was with the behavior of the races mixing.

          • Amos Moses

            “Whether or not you find anything in “scripture” to support something is irrelevant unless you are the business owner in question.”

            And he does. So it is NOT “irrelevant”.

            “Again you equate race to the behavior of race-mixing. They are two separate things.”

            And race and deviant sex are two different things. i do not care what your grandfather did.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Yes, race and “deviant sex” are two different things. Race and gay sex are two different things. Race and straight sex are two different things. Race and purple unicorns are two different things. Is there some point you’re trying to make with this?

          • Amos Moses

            “Yes, race and “deviant sex” are two different things. Race and gay sex are two different things. Race and straight sex are two different things.”

            Then why do you continue to conflate the two? It is a false argument and you try to use it all the time.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            There is apparently some heavy pocket of denseness that I just cannot seem to penetrate. You will agree that race is not the same thing as the behavior of race-mixing, correct?

          • acontraryview

            “And race and deviant sex are two different things.”

            There are no protections based upon a citizen being involved in “deviant sex”. Protections are based upon sexuality which protects all people.

          • Amos Moses

            “Protections are based upon sexuality which protects all people.”

            Sexuality based on what?

          • acontraryview

            Based on the person.

          • Amos Moses

            So whatever they decided to make up………………. so nothing.

          • Paige Turner

            We dont live in a theocracy.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes, you do. It is a satanic theocracy.

          • Paige Turner

            Oooh! Scary.

            We live in a democracy where religion is not compulsory. Believe in fairy tales if you want but you don’t get to that to impose that one others. You can try (as this B and B did) and you will pay. Its very simple.

          • Amos Moses

            You live under the government of satan………..

          • Paige Turner

            Last time I looked he wasn’t on the ballot. I also don’t have imaginary friends.

          • Amos Moses

            He is a dic-tater (notice, i added the “tater”) and he is always in charge. No ballot required. No vote needed.

          • Paige Turner

            You must be a Dickensian. Noticed how I added the “ensian”

          • Amos Moses

            You should go back to your other avatar… it is probably closer to your true self.

          • Paige Turner

            Much like yours I would expect.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            He owns a private business that hosts wedding venues, and advertises it as such, so he already knows how his business is going to be used.

          • Amos Moses

            OKAY, so when he set the business up, that was not part of his business,,, and wants it to remain that way. Who are we to insist that it change? He does not give up any right just because he is in business.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            That’s totally up to the business owner. If he didn’t offer his B&B as a wedding venue when he set up his business, no one is forcing him to offer his business now as a wedding venue. So what’s the problem?

          • Amos Moses

            He did not set it up to cater to homosexual weddings…………………..

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Either he set it up to cater to weddings or he didn’t. If he discriminates on the basis of gender, that’s a big no-no.

          • Amos Moses

            Homosexuals do not have weddings, they have SHAM weddings and the business was not set up for sham weddings.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            No such thing as a legal sham wedding. If the business was set up to host legal weddings, it must host all legal weddings.

          • Amos Moses

            It is not legal under Gods law and is a sham. Their objection is on that basis.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            When they set up a B&B in Paradise they can operate under “God’s law.” But until that glorious day, they have to comply with the laws of man.

          • Amos Moses

            No, they can operate it here…………….. and they can use discernment about who to serve… and who NOT.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Except that the law says they can’t so…they can’t.

          • Amos Moses

            And the law is wrong.

            Just because the “law” says it is ok, does not make it so. So if they “legalize” pedophilia, then you are ok with that and a 40 year old man with your daughter who is 12, not a problem for you, cause it is “legal”.

            Do i understand the law correctly in your view?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You don’t. I didn’t say anything about a given action being “okay” or not. Only that it’s legal.

          • Amos Moses

            But you seem to think that if it is “legal” then it is not a problem, so is it or is it not ok if a pedophile 40 yer old dates and has sex with a 12 year old if it is “legal”?

            Afterall, if it is not, then that is age discrimination and you are a pedophile-aphobe.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            It is not legal and will never be legal.

          • Amos Moses

            Sure, tell that to Muslims under Sharia law…..That they want to bring here…. and it is being imported by the “love wins” crowd……… Sin and death are natural to the natural man…. it will be justified by all manner of sophistry…. It is ageism… it is age discrimination….. so your denial means absolutely nothing………… pedophiles are going to use the same playbook and it is going to work because there is no reason for it not to work…. everyone who thought homo-marriage was “love wins” is going to be given over to the same vile mind that they already have…. and it will all be fine….. because… it is “legal” now…….. and the rest are just haters and bigots.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Yes, love did win with marriage equality. And, yes, you will always be a hater and a bigot.

          • Amos Moses

            i do claim the fact that i am a hater and a bigot………..of liars who pollute the language. Like you.

          • Amos Moses

            And who is going to stop it,,,,,you? You have no track record of stopping anything….. so forgive me….. i do not believe you.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            The law says that interracial opposite-sex couples are free to marry. If such a couple is refused service for their wedding by a venue that serves one-race opposite-sex couples, you would be okay with that if serving the interracial opposite-sex couple would violate the fundamentalist Christian’s “sincerely-held religious beliefs”?

          • Amos Moses

            Just because the “law” says it is ok, does not make it so. So if they “legalize” pedophilia, then you are ok with that and a 40 year old man with your daughter who is 12, not a problem for you, cause it is “legal”.

            Do i understand the law correctly in your view?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            So you do not believe that interracial opposite-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry?

          • Amos Moses

            Biblically, there is nothing against it.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Yes, in your interpretation of your scriptures, there is nothing against it. I’m sure you would agree that if another fundamentalist Christian held a different interpretation, he is free to apply that in his daily business dealings.

          • Amos Moses

            “Yes, in your interpretation of your scriptures, ”

            There is no private interpretation of scripture…………..

          • SSGT_Randolph

            You apparently would only side with a fundamentalist Christian business owner if his interpretation of scripture was the same as yours? Slippery slope.

          • Amos Moses

            ” if his interpretation of scripture was the same as yours”

            Again, there is no private interpretation of scripture……….

          • Paige Turner

            They have weddings. Obergerfell.

          • Amos Moses

            They are sham weddings. Obergerfell.

          • Paige Turner

            Thanks for your opinion from the flat earth society.
            What an truly awful human being you must be to vilify a minority group that does you no harm. What kind of human being behaves like that?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            I didn’t have a “sham” wedding. I had a wedding.

          • Amos Moses

            If you had a ceremony with another man, if you are a man, then it was not a wedding, it was a sham.

          • Paige Turner

            Its not a homosexual wedding.

            Its a wedding.

          • Amos Moses

            No, a wedding is a man and a woman.

          • Paige Turner

            Obergerfell took care of that debate.
            Its a wedding.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            A man and a woman marry in an opposite-sex wedding.

          • Amos Moses

            Marriage is ONLY a man and a woman. Anything else…………..is not.

          • acontraryview

            Nor, in the past, did some businesses set up their business to cater to interracial marriages and they, at one time, were legally allowed to refuse interracial marriages. Then the law changed. Those businesses were then required to either abide by the law or modify their business offerings. They were not grandfathered in and allowed to continue to operate outside of the law because they had not originally been set up in a different way.

          • acontraryview

            “OKAY, so when he set the business up, that was not part of his business,,, and wants it to remain that way. Who are we to insist that it change?”

            Businesses are operated under civil law. Civil law, in our nation, is determined by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives. When laws are put into place business owners have a choice to either follow those laws, or modify their business.

            “He does not give up any right just because he is in business.”

            He, nor anyone else, has no “right” to operate a business in violation of the law.

          • Amos Moses

            And if civil law is wrong, then we have civil disobedience.

          • acontraryview

            People are free to disobey the law. In turn, they face consequences for doing so. In this case, the owners chose to disobey the law and are now complaining about being held accountable for doing so.

          • Amos Moses

            So what?

          • Oboehner

            The right to practice one’s religion anyone? If a PRIVATELY owned business wishes to refuse service to anyone for any reason it should be their right, it’s not like it was a matter of life and death, the sodomites could have gone elsewhere to celebrate their deviance.

          • [email protected]

            the right to practice ones religion does not grant the right to a business to engage in discrimination. I many jurisdictions the law sides with consumers over business and protects the consumers from facing discrimination as opposed to letting the business from discriminating against whoever they want. your problem then is with business non-discrimination and public accommodation laws in general.

          • Oboehner

            Did I mention privately owned business?
            But I guess sodomy grants one the right to discriminate against another’s religious belief, and “public accommodation laws” trump the Constitution.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            You confuse businesses with religious organizations. If you want to avoid anti-discrimination laws, open a private members-only club or open a church.

          • Oboehner

            You mean like discriminating against people of faith based on another’s sexual perversion choice? How does that work?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Interracial couples can likewise do the same?

          • Oboehner

            If they so desire, but then how much business would they actually do when word got out? The market would fix that, big daddy government wouldn’t have to stick its fingers into that pie. They can let the market fix this too if gays are really so mainstream now.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            So-called Christian-owned businesses can display signage to warn the unsuspecting public that they do not serve homosexuals and/or same-sex weddings, and then let the free market decide.

          • Oboehner

            The sodomites knew beforehand, that’s why they targeted the business.

          • scotty501

            clearly you don’t understand the law

          • Oboehner

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
            — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
            That law?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            You are free to avail yourself of all of those freedoms, but you can’t discriminate.

          • Oboehner

            There is no such thing as discriminating against someone for their choices, those choices are theirs and theirs alone, not to accepted by others by force.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well, the law doesn’t see it that way. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964),

          • Oboehner

            You mean a court opinion doesn’t see it that way, the First Amendment does however.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment is law, not yours.

          • Oboehner

            The First Amendment is law, not an opinion. The court’s can only strike down new legislation based on the Constitution, which in turn can be overruled through our system of checks and balances.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “The First Amendment is law, not an opinion.”

            Right. So, how does the First Amendment apply in a given situation? Answer: However the case law says it does.

            “The court’s can only strike down new legislation based on the Constitution,”

            You’re half right. The courts can strike down a law, or uphold it. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, the Supreme Court upheld it.

            “which in turn can be overruled through our system of checks and balances.”

            And the Civil Rights Act has not been. So it is constitutional, it’s still law, and it’s still in effect.

          • Oboehner

            Nothing trumps the Constitution, not even the ever stretched “Civil Rights Act”. Sodomy is not by birth, or are behavior choices covered by the Civil Rights Act?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know what you mean by “ever stretched” but I agree with you. The Civil Rights Act doesn’t trump the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled such in Heart of Atlanta.

            “Sodomy is not by birth, or are behavior choices covered by the Civil Rights Act?”

            Not that it’s relevant, but yes. You can choose your religion, and that’s specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Act. You can’t choose your sexuality.

          • Oboehner

            You most certainly can choose your “sexuality”, the same way you can choose to get help for other unhealthy addictions.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Let’s not get into that again. It’s totally off topic and we beat it to death every day.

            What do you mean that the Civil Rights Act doesn’t trump the Constitution?

          • Oboehner

            You brought the fallacy up.
            Just what I said.

          • acontraryview

            “If a PRIVATELY owned business wishes to refuse service to anyone for any reason it should be their right”

            Then you would support repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation including that which covers discrimination based upon religious belief, correct?

          • Oboehner

            Race is one thing, sexual perversion quite another.

          • acontraryview

            Agreed. Race is a trait while what is viewed as sexual perversion if a matter of personal opinion.

            I’ll ask again: Then you would support repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation including that which covers discrimination based upon religious belief, correct?

          • Oboehner

            On the basis of race and biological birth gender, no. However one’s sexual desire is their own problem exclusively, not that of others, it is not by birth and one has the power to choose to act on it or not.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Race is a trait. Gender is a trait. Race-mixing is a behavior. A sexual act is a behavior.

          • Oboehner

            “Race-mixing is not the issue here and race is race no matter how you mix it. One should be able to be free to disagree with one’s sexual perversion behavior and not have to deal with it. In this case the sodomites were still able to perform their nasty behavior so their “rights” were not violated.

        • SSGT_Randolph

          So pedophiles in Illinois have rights, but no one else does? That’s news to me. How did you come by this startling bit of news?

          • Oboehner

            Pedophiles, homosexuals, necrophiles, whatever, they seem to be able to walk all over constitutionally protected rights to one’s religious beliefs.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            No one cares what beliefs you hold. You are, however, limited in your actions.

          • Oboehner

            Unless of course I am a pervert, then all the world is my playground no matter who I steamroll over.

          • Paige Turner

            Its the same thing with you over and over. You think more about gay sex than gay people do and the post your bile all over this site.

            Get a life.

          • Oboehner

            Well troll, what exactly is the article about you are trolling?

          • Paige Turner

            Oh dear Oboehner. Its just not going anywhere for you is it? Ive read all the other posts that you make and they all get shot down. You then resort to ad hominem and juvenile name calling or just cutting and pasting their response back at them.

          • Oboehner

            Whatever, do you write children’s fiction?

          • Paige Turner

            I bet your password is “password”

          • Paige Turner

            I do write for children but only when Im speaking with you.

            This is where you cut and paste and call me a juvenile name.

          • Oboehner

            Perhaps that’s your problem.

          • Paige Turner

            Non sequitur.

            Try again……

          • Oboehner

            Not my problem either.

          • Paige Turner

            Because you don’t know what it means……..

          • Oboehner

            *yawn* Your story. Make stuff up, repeat.

          • Paige Turner

            You’re terribly good at it

          • Paige Turner

            Thought so

        • mai1dude39

          They don’t believe in God, and they don’t have a family to love them, so they try to force the government to make them feel protected and important. It’s basically the mentally of a 3yo.

          • Oboehner

            They have piles of bleeding-hearts not to mention a large supply of other deviants – especially when it comes to gay men who are the most promiscuous group in the known universe.

          • Luke Sulla

            And they still won’t date you.

          • Paige Turner

            He aint pretty enough, is no fun at parties and only has sex for procreation by his own admission. No one is going near him!

          • Luke Sulla

            He’s not even much fun on this scary website,

          • Paige Turner

            I just got a response from him/her which was basically “I know I am but what are you?” Its hilarious and up there with his other trick of cutting and pasting your responses back to you. Impotence at its best.

          • Luke Sulla

            LOL. Bless his heart. We work with what we got.

          • Paige Turner

            Its so easy with him its almost cruel.

            I said almost.

          • Oboehner

            *whew*

          • Paige Turner

            What a cretinous and baseless thing to say. Prove your point if you think thats true.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Fundamentalist Christian Gov. Bentley of Alabama believes in God and ran on a platform of “family” values and viciously opposed same-sex marriage. He is proof that fundamentalist Christians have no honor, possess no values, and cannot be trusted.

        • Quantz

          This article isn’t about sexual deviants, it’s about gay people.

        • acontraryview

          Who doesn’t have rights that are protected by the Constitution?

          • Oboehner

            Read the article, it may come to you – hint $80,000 for one’s religious beliefs.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Non-discrimination laws apply across the board. Fundamentalist Christian business owners have the same rights as anyone else in that regard. What you seek are special rights.

          • Oboehner

            No special rights, the sodomites were still able to engage in their turd fetish regardless if it were at the bed and breakfast. However the owners were denied their religious beliefs and their right to practice them as they saw fit.

      • Amos Moses

        “if they want to continue to violate the law then they can prepare to be hit with more fines and penalties.”

        So what? The people who fought to establish this nation did so at great expense both personal and financial. Doing right ALWAYS has a price.

        ” First off the bible says nothing about refusing to provide a business service to someone who is seen as being in sin so this is not about choosing between God and men. ”

        It says plenty about using the opportunity to advance the gospel……. And they did, as is their right. To wit:

        “and advised Wathen that “homosexuality is immoral and unnatural,” and that “it’s not too late to change your behavior.””

        So you side with the cry-bullies. Good to know.

        • [email protected]

          Well if they feel the need to continue to continue on even with the fines then that is their choice.

          as to advancing the gospel they could have done that without denying service to the couple, so the point is that the course of action that they chose is not the only one open to them. and the use of the law here certainly does not constitute bullying. that would be like saying that getting a ticket for speeding is bulling.

          • Amos Moses

            “as to advancing the gospel they could have done that without denying service to the couple,”

            So you set yourself up as judge to their belief in religion and how to carry that out. No, sorry, you do not have the right to determine their beliefs and how they live that out.

            Still siding with the cry-bullies………………….

          • [email protected]

            I am not determining how they live out their beliefs, rather i am showing that they could have looked at other options but instead they chose the one that violated the law. now if they stand by that and are willing to pay the fine then that is their choice, but they certainly are not victims becasue they face the penalty for braking the law. so what bulling is going on here?

          • Amos Moses

            “rather i am showing that they could have looked at other options but instead they chose the one that violated the law.”

            Violating whose law? Mans law or Gods law? They chose to violate mans law and NOT to violate Gods law.

          • Guest

            God’s law is to love and forgive, to show mercy rather than judgement. Refusing an invited customer because they have different beliefs than you is none of the above.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry, i do not recognize that god. Which god are you referring too as to those attributes? My God does not require me to assist anyone to commit a sin against Him as that would be as bad as me committing that sin. My God does not want His followers to delude and confuse anyone as to what is sin and what is not. That would be lying.

            “Refusing an invited customer because they have different beliefs than you is none of the above.”
            It is my business if it IS MY BUSINESS they want to use.

          • Guest

            That you don’t recognize Christ isn’t a shock. When asked if people should pay taxes with idolatrous coins to a nation headed by a pagan god, Jesus said ‘Do it’.

            And you assisted them by inviting them to come do business with you when you advertised to the general public, a public that has a constitutional right to not share your beliefs.

            The solution is the one this business will probably end up using – if they can’t sell something legally to the public they will eventually just will stop offering it to the public in the first place.

          • Amos Moses

            “That you don’t recognize Christ isn’t a shock.”

            No, it is you who have made an idol to your beliefs and called it “Christ” when it is not.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Let him have it, Amos.

            Bunch of sodomites in sheep’s clothing.

          • Guest

            you do realize that’s what you have done, right?

          • Amos Moses

            So where it says here, “in the presence of the Lamb”, that is Christ. Do you not recognize Him?

            Revelation

            14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

            14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

            14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

            “AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LAMB”

            But somehow you think it is “loving” to not tell others of what awaits them by being “non-judgemental”? Sorry, no, you do not know the Christ of the bible.

            Listen, a day is coming, very soon, when people like yourself, will be confronted with the antichrist, and all of you will cry out:

            “How dare you as a christian judge him”

            Good luck with that.

          • Guest

            hmmm, Revelation has already happened, it was about the Roman Empire.

          • Charles

            ha. ha… Was it now…

          • Guest

            The facts are pretty convincing, I recommend the book Revelations: Visions, Prophecy , and Politics in the Book of Revelation by the noted Biblical scholar Elaine Pagels.

          • Amos Moses

            Hehehe…..so you are a preterits….. you had better keep praying on that.

            BTW, when did this happen,,,, just curious?

            Revelation
            20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

            So when did that thousand years happen, a thousand years of peace, where satan was kept from deception of the nations because i cant seem to find that in history anywhere.

            Right,,,, ’cause it has not happened yet….. so much for that theory.

          • Guest

            It started when Christianity was declared the official religion of Rome.

            Again, read the book – it was an anti-Roman propaganda. Many churches didn’t consider it scripture:

            During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. Eusebius expresses no definite opinion. He contents himself with the statement: “The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected”

            St. Cyril of Jerusalem does not name it among the canonical books (Catechesis IV.33-36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Perhaps the most telling argument against the apostolic authorship of the book is its omission from the Peshito, the Syrian Vulgate.

          • Amos Moses

            So either the RCC is going to take credit for the bible, and the apocrypha, in its entirety, or it has no claim on it.

            Which is it? Sorry, you do not get to have it both ways, it is part of the cannon of scripture. You ignore it at your peril. BTW, you are telling me it already happened but now you want to say it is not part of scripture, neither of which is correct and also, most of what is in Revelation is also in Daniel.

            Do you want to excise Daniel also? And Jeremiah? And Isaiah? And Matthew 24 and all the rest of prophecy because it does not fit your idolatrous belief?

          • Guest

            The RCC? What are you talking about?

            See? It is you that has made an idol of a book that you know is an anthology of many books. Do you worship God or the Bible?

          • Charles

            Joh 1:1 KJV

            (1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. They are one and the same.

          • Guest

            And so any word, any book that gets added to a copy of the Bible is automatically God’s Word?

          • Charles

            No.

          • Guest

            Ok, and since I’ve posted that many churches didn’t include Revelation, and Martin Luther didn’t think it should be there are you open to the idea it isn’t God’s Word?

          • Charles

            I don’t care what Luther thought about it, or other Churches.. It’s God’s word.. Thing is.. God does EXACTLY what he promises.. He offers a free gift. He changes you from the inside out.. REAL change to. He can do anything… It’s an amazing process.. Amen!

          • Guest

            But why is it God’s Word? Just because it made the cut on your version of the Bible? Again, it didn’t in many churches and godly men questioned why it was in theirs.

            I do realize that if it was proven NOT to be God’s Word whole cottage industries in the pentecostal, evangelical, charismatic movements would collapse over night, but what if it was just a history of the Christian persecution by the Romans cloaked in religious verbiage? How does it being there or not change what a Christian is supposed to do?

          • Charles

            You watch to much History Channel… Really… You will never prove the Holy Bible wrong though, because God never lies… Isn’t going to happen. I’m a personal witness to power of the Word of God, as are millions of others whom believe in the Lord and had their lives changed and saved by our Messiah Jesus Christ.

          • Guest

            Ok so I guess the answer to “Just because it made the cut on your version of the Bible?” is a big old ‘Yes’.

            Well God’s Word or not it is just a history of the Roman persecution, at least all the evidence indicates that.

          • Charles

            Yeah.. I’ve heard that “Theory” before as well… Thanks.

          • Guest

            Again, read the book recommended previously.

          • Amos Moses

            John 1:1-5 His word is Him, God is His word. It is a fallacious argument. God spoke the entire of creation into existence with a word. His word. Genesis 1.

            John
            1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
            1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
            1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
            1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
            1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

          • Guest

            Oh you are saying worshiping a book isn’t idolatry because all words are God?

            And there are people that Revelation has no place in a collection of God’s Word.

          • Amos Moses

            God is His word, God cannot be an idol unto Himself.

          • scotty501

            Amos you can babble a lll you want but they broke the law and got fined for it

          • Amos Moses

            So what?

          • [email protected]

            #1 please back up the claim that serving a same sex couple violates Gods law. since when is is wrong for a christian business owner to provide a business service to someone who has sin in their life?

            #2 if they felt that they could not serve same sex couples then they have the option of getting out of the business and avoiding the conflict if they felt there was one.

            #3 if they chose to take the path of refusing service then they can face the consequences. they are not victims because they face a legal penalty for breaking the law.

          • Amos Moses

            “since when is is wrong for a christian business owner to provide a business service to someone who has sin in their life?”

            Since……EVER. If it is apparent that they are doing so or going to do so. We do not sell guns to known thieves and murderers. We do not have to assist anyone in a sin they are making known.

            “if they felt that they could not serve same sex couples then they have the option of getting out of the business and avoiding the conflict if they felt there was one.”

            Or they could tell them to go elsewhere and that the reason is they are not going to violate Gods law.

            “if they chose to take the path of refusing service then they can face the consequences. they are not victims because they face a legal penalty for breaking the law.”

            And they are so what is your complaint?

          • [email protected]

            the problem is people who claim that these business owners are somehow the victims here becasue they are facing this penalty. or that this is somehow evidence of gays going after Christians. these same protections would protect a christian couple if they had been denied the business service. now you object to these laws in general saying that business should be allowed to discriminate so you object to these laws in general. but in that case then that should be the focus of the conversation.

          • Amos Moses

            “the problem is people who claim that these business owners are somehow the victims here becasue they are facing this penalty.”

            Who has claimed it is a problem. Only the cry-bullies.

          • [email protected]

            the only one doing any crying here is you with the constant claim that applying the law to those who break it is somehow bullying. non-discrimination laws were in place, the business chose to break those laws, the business now has to pay a fine and can comply or face more fines. nothing in there has anything to do with bullying. let me say once again that if they want to continue to make a statement and want to continue to rack up fines then that if completely their choice and they can do that.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            So you would be comfortable with the notion that, based upon so-called “sincerely-held religious beliefs,” the owner of a wedding venue should be able to deny his facilities to an interracial opposite-sex couple, and you would agree that it is not your place to judge the validity of his religious stance?

          • Amos Moses

            “the owner of a wedding venue should be able to deny his facilities to an interracial opposite-sex couple, and you would agree that it is not your place to judge the validity of his religious stance?”

            Sure they could, there is no basis in scripture for that, but sure they can. But why do you feel race and deviant sex are the samething?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Race-mixing is a behavior, not a race. The business owner could object to race-mixing but not have a problem with race.

          • Amos Moses

            “Race-mixing is a behavior, not a race.”

            Nothing in the bible about that being a sin.

            “The business owner could object to race-mixing but not have a problem with race.”

            So what?

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Whether or not you find something in the Bible is irrelevant. If someone else holds a “sincerely-held religious belief” because of some part of the Bible, what gives you the right to judge that belief?

          • Amos Moses

            “Whether or not you find something in the Bible is irrelevant.”

            The first amendment says different.

            ” If someone else holds a “sincerely-held religious belief” because of some part of the Bible, what gives you the right to judge that belief?”

            That very same bible. 1 Corinthians 5 & 6 among others…………..& Matthew 7 to be sure.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Yes, but you cannot act on it.

          • Amos Moses

            What utter freaking nonsense. You expect to act on your beliefs at every turn.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            You can hold certain beliefs till the cows come home, but that doesn’t mean you get to impose those beliefs onto the public.

          • The Last Trump

            Looks like the LGBT community JUST DID.
            Guess you can, huh.

          • acontraryview

            “Looks like the LGBT community JUST DID.”

            Anti-discrimination laws are put into place either by a vote of the people or their elected representatives. Not by the LGBT community.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The Last Trump, did you hear? You won the Fundie of the Year Award after I was initially announced the winner!

            http://liveactionnews .org/detroit-satanists-protest-pro-lifers-on-good-friday-by-wearing-a-crown-of-thorns-and-carrying-a-cross/

            Read down through that thread to see the conspiracy that must have taken place in knocking me out of the gold and into the bronze. Let’s just say that the Munich USA-USSR basketball game was more fairly decided!

            I am appealing the final results to the Florida Supreme Court, who I am hopeful will overturn it. This is not over yet! 🙂

          • The Last Trump

            Don’t be too hard on yourself, my friend.
            Really not much of a victory for me considering that the voting pool at fstdt dot com consists of a follower of “1” with multiple personality disorder who continually flip flops and changes “her” mind.
            There isn’t even a real trophy. She’s waiting for it to create itself in accordance with the rest of “her” world view.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            She didn’t abort your trophy, did she?!?

          • The Last Trump

            Of course not! “She’s” adamantly against abortion.
            And, yes. 🙁
            (sigh)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Keep in mind that Quantz and Poogs are both Val.

          • Amos Moses

            “You can hold certain beliefs till the cows come home, but that doesn’t mean you get to impose those beliefs onto the public. ”

            Can you even smell the Bovine Scatology you are shoveling? Or plowing? AGAIN, that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

        • SFBruce

          If following certain parts of the Bible are more important than following Illinois law, perhaps the Walders should start a church or a mission.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            This ^^^

          • Amos Moses

            Or maybe they should follow the constitution and their religious beliefs.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Nothing in the Constitution forbids public accommodation non-discrimination laws.

          • Amos Moses

            And nothing in the constitution forbids them from following their christian beliefs and denying service.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s nice. But there are plenty of other laws that do.

          • Amos Moses

            And those “laws” are wrong.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Irrelevant. They are law, therefore, it’s legal. You can work to change them if you want, but you can’t pretend they don’t exist.

          • Amos Moses

            Not “irrelevant. So again:

            But you seem to think that if it is “legal” then it is not a problem, so is it or is it not ok if a pedophile 40 yer old dates and has sex with a 12 year old if it is “legal”?

            Afterall, if it is not, then that is age discrimination and you are a pedophile-aphobe.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Pedophilia is legal; you mean pederasty. Obviously, I don’t think pederasty is okay or in any way acceptable, but we’re not discussing the issue of whether a given action is “okay,” only whether it’s legal. And refusing to serve people based solely on their sexual orientation is illegal in states with nondiscrimination laws.

          • Amos Moses

            No, no no,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i said……….IF IT WERE LEGAL…………. And it could be pederasty OR pedophilia………….. are you then okay with it……………….. because it seems you have no problem with it…….IF IT WERE LEGAL…………….

            “but we’re not discussing the issue of whether a given action is “okay,” only whether it’s legal”

            And you have not answered the question.

    • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

      MATT.22:21 = And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _

      ACTS.5:29 referred to the obeying of God against not obeying the NGO Jewish Sanhedrin/Temple Council, n not to the ruling Roman govt(= Caesar). It’s like the difference between obeying the police/govt n the housing association.

      According to the Word of God at MATT.22:21, US Christians r to obey US Law n also obey God. Christians who hv chosen to become businesspersons should obey US Law that requires them to serve everyone, irrespective of color, gender, sexual orientation, religion n national origin.
      …….The only instance that US Christians should not obey US Law is when their salvation is at stake, eg required by the US govt to receive the “mark of the beast” of REV.13:11-18(= likely cptr chip implants). Eg nearly all the apostles of Christ were martyred by the Roman govt bc they had refused to obey the Roman decree to worship the Emperor as God(= they would hv committed blasphemy if they had obeyed the Roman Law).

      • Amos Moses

        So they have rendered themselves to God as they are christians and are Gods.

        So what is your problem?

        FYI, following what you are saying, then the United States should not be in existence due to the fact that we did not obey the English rulers that were put over us. And we are illegal in Gods eyes.

        No, we are to use DISCERNMENT to know when we are to disobey men and obey God alone. We are not to lead others into sin, as in a homosexual marriage, as that would be a far worse sin.

        Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

        • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

          R u advocating for US Christians to overthrow the secular US govt = a 2nd Civil War.?

          • Amos Moses

            It seems it is being fomented by the government itself. But that is not what i said nor did i allude to such action.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            For certain Christian businesspersons, serving in homosexual weddings is the same as serving in weddings for adulterers, fornicators, blasphemers, idolaters, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, cultists, satanists, dogs, etc. So, the US govt is not persecuting Christian businesspersons or fomenting a rebellion by US Christians.

          • Amos Moses

            i made no statement about persecution………….. soooooo………..

            FYI, any of the things you mention are not readily apparent (except the dogs, maybe) (we are talking people, not just really ugly people, right?)…… two men or two women…… ARE.

            And why would a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or any other religion want to use a christian venue?

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            A bed-n-breakfast business run by Christians is not a Christian venue.
            Yr mind is getting garbled.

          • Amos Moses

            It is if they say it is, but even if what you say were true, it is not a sin to be a muslim, or any other religion. Homosexual………….different story.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            HEB.3: (NKJV) = 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

            REV.21: = 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things,[d] and I will be his God and he shall be My son.
            8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[e]
            abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all
            liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and
            brimstone, which is the second death.”
            _ _ _ _ _ _ _

            Muslims r unbelievers = blasphemers = sinners, who will be sent to hell by the Lord Jesus Christ, the same eventual fate as homo-atheists.

          • Amos Moses

            It is not a sin punishable by men. We have no commandment to stop them. The wheat are to grow with the tares. Is it ultimately punishable by God? Sure. But even scripture says they would be better off if they did not know.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Is the “sin” of homosexuality punishable by man, or is that solely the purview of your deity?

          • Amos Moses

            Both…………

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Do your scriptures instruct you as to how to go about punishing those who are “guilty” of this “sin” of homosexuality?

          • Amos Moses

            They are to be turned over to satan for the salvation of their souls. They are killing themselves already…. no need to hasten it.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            So are you saying that man has any part to play in that, or not? If man does bear some responsibility in sending those “guilty” of the “sin” of homosexuality to meet with your demons, how is man to go about carrying that out?

          • Amos Moses

            The person who bears the responsibility for their actions is the homosexual……….they are on their own and should not expect others to put up with their nonsense…. shunned… put away from the group of believers….. until they come to repentance. satan can have them, that is who they have said is their god. Let satan care for them…………..

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Well, in that case, it seems it would be prudent for fundamentalist Christian business owners to place the appropriate signage in their shop windows or appropriately display on their websites that they do not serve homosexuals and/or same-sex weddings.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            In USA, since the 1970s, homosexuality/sodomy is not against US Law. Why r u hating on the homosexuals, but not the Muslims, since both homosexuality n unChristian Islam r not against US Law.?

          • Amos Moses

            “In USA, since the 1970s, homosexuality/sodomy is not against US Law.”

            But it violates Gods law. It is not hate to tell them so. They believe a lie. It is not hate to tell them so. Islam has a history with homosexuals and buildings…. or did you miss that?

          • acontraryview

            “it is not a sin to be a muslim, or any other religion.”

            So it is all right, according to the Bible, to worship a god other than the Christian god? Was the first commandment removed from the Bible?

          • Amos Moses

            It is not a sin punishable by men. We have no commandment to stop them. The wheat are to grow with the tares. Is it ultimately punishable by God? Sure.

          • acontraryview

            “It is not a sin punishable by men.”

            So it IS a sin, just not one punishable my men. Thanks for agreeing with me. Based on that, to allow a couple who were not Christian to have a wedding at their venue would be participating in their sin, would it not?

          • Amos Moses

            If it were a man and a woman, no. Anything else……………….YES.

        • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

          Canada, Australia, NZ n Scotland did not rebel over British taxes but remained with the British Empire n later, the Commonwealth = heeded MATT.22:21. Today, the Christians in these former British colonies seem to hv it much better than the Christians in USA.

          • Amos Moses

            Not the question that was asked.

        • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

          US Christians who engage in business should “mind their own business” n not impose their sexual morals on their customers or others. US Law does not prohibit them from proselytizing to their customers or others, ie to heed MATT.5:19.
          …….US Law prohibits them n all businesspersons from refusing to do business with others based on sexual orientation, race, religion/non-religion, gender n national origin. US Law allows discrimination based on criminality or bad behavior, eg US banks can refuse to give loans to bankrupts or to hire ex-felons.

          • Amos Moses

            “US Christians who engage in business should “mind their own business” n not impose their sexual morals on their customers or others. ”

            They were minding their own business, that is why they refused, it is THEIR BUSINESS.

            Ironic, aint it.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            If they were really minding their own business, eg pay taxes n apply for permits, they would not hv broken US Law by refusing to provide their business services to the homosexual wedding.
            US Law does not prohibit Christian businesspersons from obeying their God’s law against being homosexuals, ie the US govt does intrude into their private Christian sexual morals n practices.

  • SFBruce

    The Walders say they’re “not looking for a fight,” but their actions suggest otherwise. When they received the initial email asking about a civil union ceremony, why didn’t they simply say they don’t do civil union ceremonies? Instead, they chose to tell the couple they were living in sin. According to the couple’s complaint filed by the ACLU the Walders even continued to email the couple admonishing them about the abomination of homosexuality, after the couple had stopped communicating with them. They could have dealt with this quietly and probably avoided serving the couple and at the same time have avoided legal difficulties. But that’s not the path they chose. They are even advertising their intention to continue to disobey Illinois law on their website.

    • bowie1

      Are you sure they can decline all civil unions?

      • SFBruce

        I’m not a lawyer, but I believe they could. Illinois forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, so if a business offers a product and/or service to straight people, they must also offer that same produce and/or service to gay people. Clearly, that’s not what the Walders decided to do.

        • scotty501

          ? what about gay wedding

          • SFBruce

            It’s the same. This happened in 2011, before the Obergefell, and after Illinois had approved civil unions for same sex couples.

          • scotty501

            Then who is going to have a civil union now? Not sure i understand your original post

          • SFBruce

            Probably no one, since marriage is now legal for same sex couples across the country. That wasn’t the case in 2011,when this happened.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I am a lawyer, and my off-the-cuff, un-researched reaction is that you’re probably right.

      • acontraryview

        Absolutely. The business is not required to offer any particular product or service. As long as they decline all civil union ceremonies, they would be fine. The issue becomes when they offer their facility for civil unions but refuse certain ones in a way which violates the law.

  • SSGT_Randolph

    Best wishes to the Wathens. Hopefully, they will fully recover from this ordeal. My spouse and I were fortunate that, when we applied for our marriage license, the probate office, completely populated by Christian clerks, could not have been nicer. This was proof to us that one does not have to be a hateful bigot to be a Christian. When the time came for us to marry, we asked the minister of our Unitarian Universalist church to officiate the ceremony, and she joyfully agreed. If someone is so devoutly dedicated to their religion as the owners of this B&B, why would they own and operate a business in the first place that serves the secular public?

    • Becky

      They didn’t just recently open their business. They were in business long before homosexuals and their vile ways began to spread.

      • SSGT_Randolph

        They were also in business long before the redefinition of “religious freedom.”

      • TheKingOfRhye

        The fact that laws have changed relatively recently doesn’t mean people don’t have to follow them.

  • Jalapeno

    ““[The homosexual agenda] uses anti-discrimination laws as a bully club when dissenting Americans disagree with men trying to marry men, women marrying women, men changing to women, and women changing to men,” the site reads. “It basically says that God is confused by marriage, family and sexuality and that we need to correct His mistakes.””

    Uh..what?

    Not even a little bit.

    It’s pretty much a “your religion doesn’t dictate other peoples relationships, and discrimination isn’t okay”.

  • [email protected]

    when one offers a business service to the public one must provide that service without discriminating. If they are not able to do that then they need to get out of the business so they are not in that position. if we were to allow religious belief to act as a reason to discriminate then business could discriminate against any class of people and then just claim religious conviction as their justification. this is clearly not what we want and so we have non-discrimination laws. this is also not an undue burden on the business owner as providing a business service does not constitute giving personal approval.

  • Gary Metzger

    Screw these fascists homo’s. It’s not enough for them to infect society with their std’s, HIV included, but now they have to infect society itself with their perverse notions of what marriage is, etc. TIme for Christians to move to states they can make Christian strongholds to do business in, and let the gays take care of each other. They disgust me, and this kind of action is proof they have no moral soul whatsoever. This isn’t about equality. This is about shoving the noses of Christian’s in the dirt, and if anybody doesn’t think they’re not laughing their backsides off at what they did here, they have no clue of just how evil these people really are.

    • SSGT_Randolph

      I agree with you. I have for some time now supported the notion that fundamentalist Christians should move out of state.

      • Ken M

        Not gonna happen.
        We outnumber you and you ilk,
        and we are much better people than you. We live longer and we have families.
        You’re not scaring anybody. Gays are unmanly and cowardly.

        • SSGT_Randolph

          Enough of your blathering.

        • Luke Sulla

          And yet those gays won and continue to win. So how manly does that make you?

        • acontraryview

          “Gays are unmanly”

          Especially the lesbians.

          “and cowardly.”

          How so?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            They never mention the lesbians, only gays. Strange.

    • scotty501

      Gary, You represent Christianity well!!

      • Gary Metzger

        You give us no choice. You say it’s about equality, but then shove the homosexual lifestyle in the faces of Christians, demanding they accommodate them or else. This isn’t about equality at all, it’s about forcing your lifestyle on good and decent people, knowing full well they cannot compromise and participate in this perversion of God-ordained marriage.

        • Guest

          Sounds like a rant from a KKK member back in the 20’s. Why is the business inviting everyone of every faith when they won’t serve them because of their beliefs?

        • scotty501

          Don’t try and justify your hateful judgmental un Christ-like post. You embarrass your faith on the internet which is forever. You have HATE in your sick heart and that is sad. FYI everyone is a sinner, including you and the bible doesnt rank sins although i suspect you do.

          • gogo0

            its amazing the things some people say on the internet under their real name with a picture of themselves. gary better be praying that he will never need to apply for a job that does a google search on his name before hiring

        • Paige Turner

          You’ve been shoving Christianity in everyone else’s faces for millennia. Time for some payback.

        • acontraryview

          What “lifestyle” are you referring to and how is it being shoved into the faces of Christians?

          “demanding they accommodate them or else.”

          Anti-discrimination laws are put into place either by a vote of the people or their elected representatives. All people are required to follow the law. Do you believe that Christians should be exempt from the law?

          “This isn’t about equality at all”

          Since all people have a sexuality, how would not allowing discrimination based upon sexuality NOT be an issue of equality?

          “it’s about forcing your lifestyle on good and decent people,”

          So “good and decent people” are now forced to be homosexuals?

          “knowing full well they cannot compromise and participate in this perversion of God-ordained marriage.”

          Then they shouldn’t offer marriage related services.

        • SFBruce

          The only “force” that’s being applied here is against the Wathen’s who were told in no uncertain terms their money was too dirty for TimberCreek. Illinois law forbids public accommodations such as TimberCreek to discriminate based on sexual orientation, something TimberCreek openly acknowledges they have done. Why is it surprising or shocking that they now have to face the consequences of that?

  • mai1dude39

    Gays and heterosexuals are definitely not equal,
    gays’ feelings are much more expensive than ours are.
    Our feelings are worth nothing, gays’ feelings are priced in the stratosphere.
    How can I make money off my hurt feelings? 🙁

    • http://www.personaltouchmaids.org/ TammyHenson

      Maybe sue LGBT. See if you get money for pain & suffering. If u do, let us know. Others may follow.

      • scotty501

        Is there a comment hidden in your comment?

        • http://www.personaltouchmaids.org/ TammyHenson

          No. mai1dude39 said “How can I make money off my hurt feelings?” I just made a joke.

    • [email protected]

      if a couple had been denied service at the bed and breakfast becasue they were christian or becasue they were heterosexual they would have been protected under the same law and they would have gotten the same kind of penalty against the business. so yes, there is equality here and the same protections used here apply equally to others.

    • SSGT_Randolph

      Here’s what you need to do. Find a gay-owned wedding venue that will refuse service to you when you tell them that you want to use the venue for an opposite-sex wedding. Good luck with that. So far, I haven’t heard of a gay-owned wedding venue doing that.

      • The Last Trump

        WHAT!? There ARE gay owned wedding venues!?
        How strange that LGBT members never choose to use them…..
        Oh that’s right. No cash windfall there. 🙁

        • pud

          TARGET CHRISTIANS. MAKE MONEY WHILE PLAYING VICTIM.

          Neat little scam they got going.

          • [email protected]

            no one is targeting Christians, the couple went to a business that advertised a certain service and they tried to use that offered service. they were denied service and thus they brought a complaint becasue the law had been violated. nothing about that involves targeting anyone.

          • scotty501

            Pud, LOL Well if thats the case stop falling for it and obey the law

          • Paige Turner

            We learned from Christians who have been doing it tax free for centuries.

        • SSGT_Randolph

          I never suggested they would be easy to find. But if you’re really eager to target a business in the hopes of monetary gain, go for it.

        • Becky

          And, that’s the crux of the matter. Money!

      • Paige Turner

        Have you noticed that most wedding planners and business are already owned by gay Men?

        They are smart enough to realise that they make money from straight couples instead of bigotry.

        • scotty501

          Paige that is a christian lie. State your source if its true

          • Paige Turner

            I dont take orders from you “Scotty”

    • Chip01

      Just curious why you when with “gay” and then the long version for straight with “heterosexual.

      • mai1dude39

        Instead of “heterosexual” use “normal.” Since we’re at least 95 percent of the population, probably more, “normal” is the right word.

        • Chip01

          A simple question for you… But No simple answer from you, huh?

        • Paige Turner

          We don’t live in a “majority rules” world here. Its why there are laws to protect minorities.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          This is becoming my pet peeve as of late, people here talking about gay people and always using that word “normal”…..as in “gays aren’t normal” and so forth. Like being “normal” is some kind of badge of honor or something? What’s so great about being normal? I’m not even gay, but I could be considered not normal in a few different ways, and there aint a damned thing wrong with that.

          I don’t remember anyone ever saying “I want to be normal when I grow up”….

    • Guest

      Businesses have to respect the civil rights of employees and customers, heterosexual has nothing to do with it.

      Oregon Dentist fined $348,000 of encouraging Christian dental hygienist to attend a work-related class run by the Church of Scientology in 2012.

  • Chip01

    Jim Walder Got what he hoped for…he tried his best to convert someone over to his religion.

    Unfortunately for Jim Walder, he failed.

    Time to pay up, Jim Walder

  • Peter Leh

    ““It is not an issue of fairness or equality, but an issue of right and wrong. We cannot be part of what God condemns”

    So the Walders check every couple to make sure they are married before allowing the couple to stay in the B&B?

    • Chip01

      Religion is the faith that all the contradiction works out to be a positive in the end.

      Atheism is the truth that the contradictions don’t add up.

      • Peter Leh

        the Walders certainly have a contradiction, for sure.

        it is true.. it does not add up.

        • pud

          Your moral math is wrong.
          People without a conscience cannot fathom someone who has a conscience. To you and your kind, people like the Walders are freaks. You never meet people like them in your demographic.

          • scotty501

            No people like the Walders are zealots and law breakers that bring reproach on christianity

          • Peter Leh

            as a christian.. and a business owner, I assure you I know my “kind” quite well. 🙂

    • Gary Metzger

      Yep, I bet they do.

      • acontraryview

        Do you think they also check prior to renting their facility for a wedding if either of the couple has been divorced for reasons other than adultery, and then refuse to rent to them?

        Do you think that if they host a wedding event that they ensure that all couples staying at the B&B are not going to have sexual relations unless they are married?

        Do you think that if they host a birthday party they ensure that the child was not born out of wedlock?

        Do you think that they require that a wedding only be performed before the Christian god and not some other god?

        I bet they don’t.

      • Peter Leh

        If so, they would be the first i am aware to do so.

  • scotty501

    No wonder youth is turning away from religion with this kinda of bigotry. Good work christians!

    • Reason0verhate

      You are very mistaken.
      The churches which promote homosexuality have been losing members even faster than the conservative churches. The Lutherans lost a half-million members in one year – the year after they started ordaining homosexuals. The progressive churches have been slow to figure out that hanging a rainbow flag out front does not draw people in – it does just the opposite.

      Liberals have their narrative: “The church has to change with the times, or it will lose all its members.” Didn’t work out that way. The churches that change with the times are moving toward extinction. And good riddance too. When God leaves a church, the people always follow.

      • scotty501

        Nice try! You are factually wrong. Church attendance by Gallup polls 22%. Its going down each year. The next generation wants NOTHING to do with your hypocrisy

        • Paige Turner

          They never quote facts. Just “I said” or ” I know”. It’s why “religiously unaffiliated” is the largest growth market

        • Reason0verhate

          Who would want you in their church?

      • acontraryview

        “The churches which promote homosexuality”

        Do you have an example of a church that “promotes” homosexuality?

        “The churches that change with the times are moving toward extinction.”

        You mean like the all-white churches that starting allowing black members?

        • Reason0verhate

          Yeah, the numbers back up what I said. The churches that change with the times are moving toward extinction. Numbers don’t lie.

          Episcopalians
          1960: 3.2 million (1.8% of US population)
          2014: 1.8 million (0.66%)

          United Church of Christ
          1960: 2,056,000
          2014: 979,000
          More than half its members in 50 years.

          United Methodist
          1960: 11,026,000
          2009: 7,774,000

          Presbyterian Church USA
          1983 (year of their merger): 3.1 million
          2014: 1.6 million

          Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
          1987 (year of their merger): 5.2 million
          2013: 3.9 million
          The 2013 figure reported at
          The ELCA approved the ordination of non-celibate gays in 2009: it lost a half-million members in 2010-2011, so clearly there was a cause/effect relationship in this case between gay issues and membership decline.

          Disciples of Christ
          1960: 1.8 million
          2009: 658,000

          OTOH, several of the evangelical churches are growing.

          Assemblies of God (very conservative)
          1960: 508,000
          2009: 2,914,000

          United Pentecostal (very conservative)
          1960: 175,000
          2009: 646,000

          Church of God (ultra conservative)
          1960: 170,000
          2009: 1,076,000

          Presbyterian Church in America (broke away from the liberal Presbys)
          1973: 41,322
          2009: 341,210

          Evangelical Free Church
          1960: 31,543
          2008: 356,000

          Church of the Nazarene
          1960: 307,000
          2009: 645,000

          Christian and Missionary Alliance
          1960: 59,000
          2009: 432,000

          • Guest

            I don’t think anyone has said the puffed up haughty churches don’t pander to the masses. you do realize the churches of the deceiver will be both big and call themselves Christian?

          • scotty501

            minuscule numbers, tiny in comparison to the US population. Churches inflate their numbers

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask again: Do you have an example of a church that “promotes” homosexuality?

            Overall church attendance and the number of citizens who identify with a particular church have been falling in the US for quite some time. If you add up your numbers you will see that the growth in the churches you mentioned does not come close to the decline in the churches you mentioned. You are attempting to create a relationship of causality out of a relationship of concurrence. That is a false premise.

      • Guest

        of course Christian churches lose members, the seduction of judgement is very strong for all men. Good rule of thumb, the bigger the church the more likely it is taking the easy path that isn’t God’s.

        • scotty501

          IF you’re on Gods path I want to go the other direction

          • Guest

            And that you driven away by love and forgiveness should give you pause when you stop trying to be witty and actually reflect on your words.

          • scotty501

            If you are an example of love you missed the mark

          • Guest

            Considering you are just here complaining about people of faith I’ll leave you to it.B
            Beam me up.

          • scotty501

            Wrong, I’m complaining about people who say they are of faith but their actions say differently and keep breaking the law

          • Guest

            So am I so why am I on your radar at all?

          • scotty501

            Are you paid by the site to be a troll and get clicks for advertising dollars? good luck

          • Guest

            see? I thought that was what you were doing, just not very well.

          • scottrose

            Homosexuals do not define what is “Christian.”

          • Paige Turner

            You will.

  • Sam

    the business is owned and operated by them the government should not be allowed to say who or what they have to host there. Constitution protects religious rights The new yahoos in office are going totally againest what this country was founded on if someone wants to be homosexual let them but they should not try to force someone to host a party for them thats trying to force their beliefs Keep doing what your doing Mr and Mrs Walder God will bless you for it and persecute those who persecute you

    • Guest

      If they can’t in good conscience sell something they’ve invited the general public to buy and respect their civil rights then there is a simple solution:

      Don’t offer it to the general public. Problem solved.

      • Paige Turner

        It is a rather simple and elegant solution. I wish they would act upon it more.

        • Guest

          it’s the Christian one, running a business illegally was said to be an abomination under the Old Covenant and would be oath-breaking under the New. Thinking the secular laws doesn’t apply to them is the mindset of a drug dealer and the same advice you’d give to them applies:

          Don’t sell something you can’t sell legally.

          • Paige Turner

            It does make perfect sense.

            Why anyone would turn away good business is staggering.

            Claiming that they don’t want to participate is disingenuous as they are not participating rather they are providing a service. Much like the owner of the supermarket is not participating in your party even though he is selling you all the things that you need to cater for it.

            Your party could be for something that he doesn’t approve of however its none of his business as he has to serve everyone.

            Very simple and elegant isn’t it?

          • Guest

            in that note here is a relply someone left when talking about the case of the New Mexico photography studio that refused a commitment ceremony.

            What would Jesus say to a wedding photographer who was forced by the law to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony?

            “Did somebody appoint you judge when I wasn’t looking? Pull up your big girl pants and get to work! They’re paying you – not compelling you to serve them for free. Go make some money…and be sure to give them more than they expect. Love your enemies…do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you. You prayed for me to prosper your business – don’t turn up your nose at my answer. You want to complain about it? Where were you when I made the world?”

          • Paige Turner

            Its like the photographer not approving of the bride being pregnant, married previously, having lived with the groom before the marriage, not being a Virgin, being of a different race to the groom, not liking the age difference etc etc etc.

            The photographer can have their opinion however its irrelevant. They must provide the service or face the consequences.

          • BigHobbit

            It doesn’t matter whether they “participate” or not. The NM photographer had a much better case than any florist or baker – a photographer has to be there to take pictures. And, unlike the florists and bakers, a photographer actually does have an artistic job, one with “speech”. And the photographer lost every case at every level.
            If you offer a service, even one where you participate materially, to some customers and decline to offer that same service to other customers, if the basis of that decision is on prohibited by law, you have illegally discriminated.

          • Paige Turner

            If the photographer had a good case, why did he lose?

            Im not sure of your point however you seem to be agreeing with me.

          • BigHobbit

            The photographer had a much better case. It was still a losing case.
            My point was that it doesnt matter if you “participate” or not. What matters is if the basis of your decision was the identity of the customer.

          • Paige Turner

            And your conclusion is that if they are gay they can be denied service?

            Please explain

          • BigHobbit

            No, I didnt say that.
            I think we both argue that business owners should not illegally discriminate.
            My point, which I restated more fully in a separate post, is that whether or not the business “participates”, in every case, they still are illegally discriminating.
            Thus the issue of participation is not legally relevent.

          • Paige Turner

            That makes no sense

          • BigHobbit

            Above you argue that someone selling a product is not participating. I agree.
            But I argue that it doesnt matter. Even if what you are selling is your services that include participating, like a photographer, you STILL may not illegally discriminate.

            Whether or not you participate or not is not legally relevent.
            Even if a baker or florist can prove the point on participation, they do not shield their guilt.

          • Paige Turner

            Its just a Wedding and they are getting paid to bake cakes/photograph/provide a venue.

            I dont see what the problem is for them. Anyone who knocks back business in this market has rocks in their head.

          • BigHobbit

            I agree. It takes a special prejudice to spite your own economic success.

    • [email protected]

      so should the business also be allowed to turn away a Jewish couple or an inter-racial couple if they wish? should we have protections that shield consumers from discrimination while they are seeking a business service?

      • Josey

        They have private clubs that do that already, clubs for the rich, yada, yada. This couple should be ever bit as protected as anyone else in their business.

        • Guest

          and they are free to run their business as a private club or non-profit rather than advertise to the general public, but they didn’t.

          that is the issue, they invited everyone to come do business and then applied an illegal test the responding customer must pass to actually buy – immoral, illegal, unAmerican, unChristian.

          They need to apply the test first and then make the invitation of buy just to that group which is what you do as a private club or non-profit.

          can’t invite and then test, the customer’s own civil rights shield them from such invidious requirements.

        • scotty501

          Josey Are you actually comparing a private club to a business open to the public? Christians don’t seem to understand the law

    • Jalapeno

      Sure, except for all of those silly civil rights laws that have been in place for decades.

    • scotty501

      Sam you don’t seem to understand the law

    • BigHobbit

      Every business owner has the same responsibility to know and to follow all the same rules, regulations and laws that every other business owner has to follow.
      There is no religious “right” to violate consumer protection laws.

    • Peter Leh

      “the business is owned and operated by them the government should not be allowed to say who or what they have to host there.”

      said the white southern male christian to the blacks. Think…….

  • Becky

    “The two men held a ceremony in their yard in 2011 after being declined; they did not seek other facilities as alternatives.”

    Well, of course, they didn’t seek other facilities as alternatives. They preyed on the well-advertised, Christian owned bed and breakfast, put a target on them and are now awaiting their easy payday.

    The homosexuals claim that they suffered harm and embarrassment. It’s no secret that homosexuality is condemned by God…did they ever care? Never! They’re shameless. One thing they don’t feel is harm and embarrassment. They do, however, become violent and will threaten to destroy you if you oppose them.

    • scotty501

      LOL you uneducated hick. Obey the law Christians. Remember the people that threw food on the kids at the lunch counter in the 50s? They were christians like you too!

    • John N

      So you are saying you deliberatly choose a god and a cult which – as you say – allows and even requires you to discriminate and therefore harm other people, and then you are surprised and even indignant when the victims of your discriminating actions don’t agree and refer to the law?

      How funny. You really would expect they had a bit more respect for your vicious cult.

      And on top if, you accuse the victims of all this for being ‘shameless’ and ‘violent’, while the only thing they ever did was using their rights as a customer.

      How far can anybody defer from reality?

    • SSGT_Randolph

      Well, I don’t know if the couple “targeted” the so-called Christian B&B; but I do know that if I encounter any business that displays as much as a fish sign in the window, I will not darken its door. All so-called Christian-owned businesses should openly display a warning to the public in the form of “NO HOMOSEXUALS ALLOWED” or “WE DO NOT SERVE SAME-SEX WEDDING CEREMONIES.”

    • scotty501

      Becky You don’t seem to GET IT? Laws are separate from religion. Keep right on embarrassing christianity Beck!

    • SFBruce

      What violence? I find no record of the Wathen’s committing or threatening acts of violence. They did what all responsible people do who think they’ve been the target of unlawful discrimination: they took it to the proper authorities. And in this case, they won, as the law demands. Please get your facts straight.

      • Becky

        Where did I specify that the two homosexuals were “committing or threatening acts of violence”?? I was referring to homosexual activist groups…they do become violent and will threaten to destroy you if you oppose them. That’s the truth and there’s certainly record of that.

        • scotty501

          Dear Bigoted Becky, What violent record are you referring to? be specific. There are probably isolated case of every group including yours. do people hold you responsible for the westboro group?

        • TheKingOfRhye

          And there’s just been NO records of anti-gay groups or people committing threats or violence……….oh wait……

        • scotty501

          Here is your quote becky: however, become violent and will threaten to destroy you if you oppose them.

        • SFBruce

          Your original comment wasn’t clear at all to me that you meant gay activist groups, as opposed to Mark and Todd Wathen, specifically. But I still challenge that claim. What evidence do you have that gay activist groups are routinely engaging in violence? Where is the “record of that?”

  • Becky

    There are exemptions for small businesses from some of the discrimination laws (eg: age discrimination). However (and sadly), that’s not the case with the so called same-sex marriage laws, but that needs to change straightaway. Christian businesses will continue getting attacked by homosexuals and their vicious groups. If the business was established prior to the same-sex marriage law, then Christian business owners should be allowed exemption from it.

    • Jalapeno

      Last I checked, all discrimination of customers laws still applied, but there are some employee discrimination laws that don’t apply?

      Why would they get an exemption though? Just because they don’t like following the law?

      • Becky

        The ADEA (a federal law), for example, doesn’t apply to small businesses that have less than 20 employees. However, depending on the case, even small businesses that have over 20 employees could still be exempt from that law. There are other anti-discrimination laws that don’t apply to small businesses, btw.

        • Jalapeno

          That’s discrimination for employment, not serving customers.

          • Becky

            Yes. I’m aware of that. My point is…if there are exemptions in place (even though they’re pertaining to anti-discrimination/labor laws) for small businesses, then it shouldn’t be any different when it pertains to customers. Especially when it concerns our freedom of religion.

          • Jalapeno

            It is different though, because small businesses are held to the same standards when it comes to servicing customers, and the precedence has been repeatedly set that religious people are held to the same standards.

          • scotty501

            Beck, wouldn’t it be easy to just follow the law vs picking and choosing your interpretation of select scriptures and bringing reproach on christianity while you are turning youth away from religion?

    • scotty501

      exclude black too while you’re at it..right Becky? When the get a business license they agree to abide by the guidelines and sometime they change. Very simple. You are not special

  • acontraryview

    Yes, when you break the law you are held accountable. There is no “it’s against my religious beliefs” exception to anti-discrimination laws.

  • Samuel F Waddell

    Do you suppose they were targeted because the were Christians? These new laws have set people up for scams.

    • scotty501

      Your imaginary scam can’t happen if Christians OBEY THE LAW like everyone else

      • Samuel F Waddell

        We cannot obey laws that violate the higher law of God and His Word. You will find if this continues, and it probably will, that millions will not obey it. You will never force, the truly committed to Christ, to compromise. They will just grow stronger. Only the half hearted can be forced. No one in history has even been able to do so to the truly committed followers of Christ. But we must suffer the consequences or allow The Lord to deliver us as shadrach meshach and abednego, when God delivered them from the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar, because they would not bow before the kings idol. Today your idol, it appears to be yours, is sexual immorality and perversion. That is one of America’s chief idols. We as believers, our faith will not allow us to bow before this idol. We cannot and we will not because we fear God more than men! Remember JESUS was crucified and He was innocent. If we suffer it is temporary but there is eternal suffering awaiting those who practice and support these sins. Now which do you choose to face?

        • scotty501

          “He should not be here said the fish in the pot. He should not be here when your mother is not” The Cat in the Hat

        • John N

          So you admit you deliberately chose a religion, a denomination or a specific interpretation of your holy book, that tells you to consider certain groups of people as inferior, and requires you to discriminate them.

          Besides this being a very ugly way of thinking, it is also not permitted by the law in most civilized countries.

          But you really do not care, you actually seem to be proud of your behaviour, and you promise us more of the same in the future.

          And as a justification you point to Jesus, saying that he was a law breaker too.

          Now I wonder, what discrimination laws was Jesus actually breaking? Which categories of people did Jesus consider inferior, and why did he discriminated them?

          Apart from the obvious question of why a story in a 2000 years old book would be a valid justification for showing ugly behaviour today, of course.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            No, I am 60 years old. I have been a born again Christian for 43 years. People who practice all types of sin, including homosexual sex have always been welcome to come to church to hear the True, un-compromised, gospel and people were kind to them even when they did not repent. I had a friend that way years ago. Unbelievers and those living in willful sin are invited to come and hopefully be redeemed and changed, as we have been, by the power of JESUS CHRIST. The problem came when the LGBT stepped into the marriage business. Christian, Biblical marriage has always been and will always be between one man and one women as JESUS stated. No one not even the, small, US Supreme Court can change the Truth of God into a lie and get away with it forever or be supported by followers of Christ for doing so. Mark 10:6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
            True Christians are not haters of anyone but lovers of God and His Word more than men who try to pervert it. I could easily flip your argument back on you and show how some or many of you are the real haters. I have never known a True believer to ever hurt or sue for a large sum of money any homosexual. If so I never saw it. They may have had a homosexual who molested a child thrown in jail and rightly so. Of course not all homosexuals do that.
            Truly It is not the LGBT who are being discriminated against but it is the people who believe in the Bible who are being discriminated against because of their faith. STOP lying and accusing christians of hate because we are committed to obeying God. As I stated before why would we forfeit our eternity for your idol? Go and do as you please but leave us out of it. I will finally warn you from God’s Word and this goes for our nation. When a nation or a people become so sinful that they call evil good and good evil, and come against God’s people, then they are not far from God’s judgment. He is patient, Kind and , loving but Holy, Holy Holy and will judge the un-repentant. PSLAM 9:17 “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” When He judges and how He judges is His call but I am certain that it is coming. Unless of course we as a nation repent.

          • scotty501

            rambling. Nobody cares about your opinion. Religion does not dictate law in the US. You are uneducated. Christians need to follow the law they agreed to with a business license of get out of the business. Its not a businesses job to SELECTIVELY morally judge its customers. Its a business open to the public. They are not participating in the actual ceremony. Can a waiter not serve a fat person in a restaurant because gluttony is a sin? Where would the judging end? How could your wife go out to eat?
            All these actions do is turn youth away from God with this bigotry and YOU are a part of it! No wonder church attendance is a joke

          • Samuel F Waddell

            So you support pedophiles and rapist? They are a certain group are they not? how far does your argument go? what about people who have sex with dead bodies or animals or incest? Or polygamy? You believe that they should be applauded and popular as well. I am sure that they are next to demand their rights like you. Where does this end? Only with the Judgment of God. As at Sodom and Gomorrah. God who waits patiently giving men time to repent but when they cross the line of no return, and only God know it, then His judgment comes. look at history it is plainly seen. Nations were conquered and defeated as they became immoral and perverse.

          • John N

            So when you don’t have rational arguments, you switch to straw men and hyperboles?

            We were talking about discrimination of homosexuals. As far as we know, homosexuality is not against the law and does not harm anybody. What I believe about anything else is of no imporance here.

            You are free to hold any opinion you want. You are free to believe any vicious religion or cult you want. You are even free to consider any category of people as secondary class, even when that will make people doubt your moral standards.

            But you are not free to act upon your beliefs and actively discriminate people for the choices you made. And hiding behind your bible to defend your ugly behaviour is really low.

            Societies have risen and societies have collapsed. A lot them did so because of religious None of them went because they allowed homosexuals

          • Samuel F Waddell

            We do not hate you. This is a strategy, as you should know, by the LGBT activists. You are the poor victim and people of faith are evil haters trying to keep you from doing what you do in your bed room. This is foolishness. When we really just don’t want anyone to try and force us to support it because we cannot and will not. We have not killed any of you or sued you. On another subject, I do not hate Muslims. I speak them often. I do not believe what they believe though. If they killed me I would be praying for them and if you sued me then I would pray for you as well. I am a minister of the Gospel of Christ. Yes, I am evangelical. If two people of the same sex came to me and wanted me to marry them it would be a violation of my FAITH. They could find someone to marry them but they want to force me out of their hate and spite for what I believe. I could not and would not even if I had to go to prison or even death. These laws that Georgia and other states have written, which have been vetoed and made such as issue, were not laws to hurt you or keep you from doing what you want, you now can do as you please, these laws were to protect me from you and your radical desire to sue or prosecute me because I will not give in to your insistence that I must accept your lifestyle and perform and marriage ceremony for you. Or someone in business who does not support you . That is the problem. You and America can do what you want, and suffer the consequences, I am not stopping you, no one has burst into your home and stopped you, but stop trying to force people who do not believe to be involved. We both know that this is the radical strategy of the LGBT activists. So stop pretending. The LGBT will probably continue and become more radical and now so many young Americans are sexually immoral and unbelievers that they will support them and America will become a nation like the USSR was and put Followers of Jesus in prison, that day will probably come. But still I, nor a huge number of us, will given in because we follow JESUS and His Word. Now I leave you. You don’t need to contact me again. This is where i stand whatever and I do not fear and will not be changed. As Martin Luther said when on trial, ” I will no recant, my conscience is tried to Scripture…” Mine is as well.

          • John N

            Why do christians try to make it sound as if THEY were the victims in these cases? The real victims here, the people being hurt by christians telling them they are only second class, are homosexuals.

            Nobody has asked you to support anybody whatsoever. Nobody has asked you to accept any lifestyle at all. Nobody is trying to persecute you. As for me, you can stick in your vivious beliefs about sin until the end of the world. Nobody cares.

            >’…but stop trying to force people who do not believe to be involved.’
            I couldn’t say it any better. Keep you religion out of other peoples life. If you decide to go in business, you accept the equality laws according that business. If you cannot do that because you chose to follow a religion requiring you to discriminate people and interfere with their life, you should not go in business.

            And please stop hiding behind you holy book to justify your ugly behaviour. It makes religious people looking very sick.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            I think you know why. You know that it is the Christians who are being sued for huge amounts. 80,000—150,000 USD and put out of business. Never can I remember any real Christian ever suing homosexuals or even hurting them but now that they have the power their radicals are showing their vindictive attitudes towards God’s Word, which we represent. We have invited homosexuals to church and show them kindness, but of course we believe that they must, as we, repent of our sins and sex between two of the same sex is definitely sin in the Bible and there are more verses in the New Testament against doing that than in the Old. We don’t force our faith on others we offer it. Now, be warned Muslims will kill you if they get in power and then you would be wishing that Christians were around just saying that we must all repent and follow JESUS. I have spoken with a Muslim several times, I told him that I don’t hate homosexuals but I do not agree with their lifestyle. He told me that he hates them. All Christians want is what ever other person wants FREEDOM and Freedom to practice our faith without being sued or sent to prison of not being involved in a marriage ceremony that is against God’s Word. There was no problem until the radical LGBT stepped into the marriage business. I will write JESUS words on marriage so you will see why we cannot be involved: MARK 10:6-8 “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
            Sex in the Bible is only sanctioned and holy in this marriage which JESUS spoke of, one man and one woman. We both know that the radical LGBT activists will not be satisfied until they force their agenda on everyone. I am a minister and I could never be involved in a gay marriage ceremony. It violates my faith. I would have to go to prison. So you see who is really being threatened here and it isn’t you. You say no one is sending anyone to prison. I say, ” Not yet ” but it hasn’t even been one years yet and many are fast at work to scam known Christians out of money and our government is supporting it. Please stop playing the victim here. You are not victims except of yourselves. Even Matthew Shepherd was murdered by another gay man over a drug deal but liberals tried to pin it on some conservatives and many would love to have pinned it on evangelicals like me. You can do what you do our society is now pagan again after over 1000 years. This is prophesied in Scripture and is a sign of the end of time approaching. So why don’t you just go to your supporters and get them to be involved. Could the answer be? There is $ in the suing over gay marriage business?

          • scotty501

            Sammuel, You don’t get it or don’t want to get it. Gays would not refuse you service in the first place. Remember are families are straight… Just obey the law PERIOD. Its not a businesses job to morally judge its customers.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            As an evangelical Christian pastor I cannot encourage people to support this. there is no end to compromise once one starts. Pastors were tortured in the Soviet Union and went prison of 14 years and more just because they could not obey the law and stop smuggling in Bibles. How can I face such men in heaven if I compromise? I cannot. I don’t hate you but I cannot ask my people to compromise their convictions. The law in Georgia, at least part, was to protect pastor from being prosecuted. This shows that the plan is to even force this next. I cannot be involved as I said I will have to go to prison. When or if it come to that.I am prepared. When the laws of men become idolatry or immorality as in Babylon and now in the USA we must be as shadrach meshach and abednego who would not bow so I am sure that millions of American believers will not either. i could not perform and gay marriage ceremony.

          • scotty501

            No one is asking or forcing you to perform a gay marriage, man you are a drama queen

          • Samuel F Waddell

            No not yet.

          • scotty501

            what is sad here is that YOU had to delete your own message for being so vile and hateful PASTOR Hypocrite. Was that Christ like?

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Quite rational they are branches of the same tree. What will be next? I am old enough to see all the change in society. I know that we are falling in America, And so do our enemies. I am a missionary and have travelled the world and met many people. Also I know much more about this than you might think. I worked in a ministry in the French Quarter in a mission. Most gays don’t care about being married. Most if any are faithful to one person. We both know that. Some have even tried to get me to join them. I refused. Which shows that they aren’t really born gay. Some said that we are all sexual being and can choose either way. Others said that they were molested as a child. I cannot hate anyone who that happened to. I have seen them try to get heterosexual men to join them and know one young man who, foolishly, went to a party with strangers thinking that he was meeting a girl, got drugged and gang raped by a group of homosexuals who filmed it and black mailed him into not telling. It has been 6 years and he is still having trouble from that. There is a very dark side to all this as I think you know but may not be willing to admit. I do not hate you nor am I the one suing you.In fact I love you enough to tell you the truth and pray that you will be transformed by CHRIST. I just want the freedom to practice my faith and not have people try to force me into a gay marriage ceremony that I do not believe in. THAT’S ALL. Do you think that maybe you can convince the vindictive among you to let us alone? Or is there too mush $ and enjoyment in suing Christians that they will not stop until JESUS comes again?

  • hytre64

    Unfortunately, these hosting venues may have to no longer accept ANY weddings if they want to avoid having to pay enormous legal fees and avoid court orders.

    • scotty501

      or honor the business license they agreed to?

  • MomAA

    This is why I have no respect for the “gay” community. They are always preaching tolerance, and they are the most intolerant group I have ever come across. I do not understand why they would want to do business with someone who doesn’t want to do business with them. It is very obvious that they shop Christian businesses, knowing that they will be refused, so they can sue. The “gay” community are the BIGGEST HYPOCRITES on the planet. They would never go to a mosque and ask them to perform a “perverted” ceremony. They will never speak out against some in Islamic countries whom are murdering “gays” by throwing them off buildings and publicly executing them. Christians have better wake up. Every group, except for Christians, are pushing back in the culture. If we don’t fight our enemies, inside and outside the church we will have no religious rights in America. Both Republican (RHINOS) and especially Democrats are enemies of the Christian faith. We must ask ourselves: Do we want to have religious freedoms or not?

    • BigHobbit

      Typical. Blame the victim.
      Every business owner has the same responsibility to know and to follow the rules, regulations and laws that every other business owner has to follow.
      When the business owner violates the law and gets fined, you blame the victim of the crime, rather than the actual person who violated the law.
      When man gets sentenced to prison for rape, do you say “typical woman.”? Of course not.
      When a con man gets convicted of swindling an old couple, do you say “old folks shouldn’t be so gullible.”? Of course not.
      Is it only when the victims are people you don’t think are worthy, that you blame the victims?

      • Peter Leh

        “Is it only when the victims are people you don’t think are worthy, that you blame the victims?”

        those who protect the perps are just as dangerous

        • Samuel F Waddell

          Very true. It is not the one’s with no power who are the most dangerous it is when they become empowered and especially if they are dark and evil.

          • scotty501

            very judgmental and christ like comment!

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Love speaks the truth. We are all evil when separated from God’s grace in Christ.

          • scotty501

            Your comments are hateful but you justify it, poor example of christ

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Not meant to be. Christians are not attacking gay people. Never really have at least in my lifetime and I am 60. Others may have though. We are just believers in the Bible and it says what it says. We just want the freedom to practice our faith, as it is, in Scripture, not getting involved in ceremonies that go against our faith, without being threatened by law suits for great sums. If the laws of men violate God’s then we must love and fear God. Honestly I am amazed at how many Americans mock and ridicule the Christian faith and then turn around and speak of tolerance and bigotry. There has been hypocrisy in churches, as well, and I can see how people would be disgusted with pedophile priests, as I am, I am not Catholic, but there have also been some in other churches, as well, doing evil. But when we look at JESUS CHRIST our LORD, who is what our faith is about then we can find no fault, just as Pilate could not and we are left to bow our knees and worship. I hope and pray that you will find the forgiveness and power of transformation that He has available for you! I have no hatred for you. I hope and pray God’s best for you.

          • scotty501

            The owners are not taking part in the ceremony. the ceremony is at another location in many of these cases. There are a lot of “sins” in the bible and singling out gays is an attack.

            Please answer this question: Where would it stop if we allowed discrimination based on religion. Could a waiter refuse to serve a person he thinks is a fornicator or a drunkard etc? People would be refusing service to all sorts of people.

            Why not stop judging people and leave it to God..does he need your help? did jesus do this? Its not a businesses job to morally judge each customer. I hope and pray you will realize you are actually bringing reproach on christianity and turning youth away from God with your zealot bigotry, which is a real sin

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Please do not twist the truth, Judging is when someone either brings judgment upon someone literally, as the Pharisees stoning people for adultery or wishing judgment upon them in their hearts. I do not want either upon you. I want to see repentance in my own life as well as my country, which means your life because only that way will you truly be full of God’s love and holiness. Jesus and John the baptist both preached repentance. The first recorded words of Jesus ministry are, Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand ( Matthew 4:17). Repent means to turn to God with all your heart and away from sin. I want to see you saved eternally. It is actually more of a judgmental act for someone to sue a business owner, for 80,000 to 150,000 USD for simply asking the person to go to someone else for religious reasons. That is really judging. It the Bible judging was referred to the Pharisees who killed people and we as bad or worse and the Romans who did and were the same.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            It only has to do with marriage and what marriage means for the Christian. No one is going to discriminate against anyone for anything else. You are asking Christians to take part in a ceremony that they cannot endorse, That is the problem. It is actually attempting to limit their freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means that I can refuse to be involved in what my faith calls a sin. If I am forced, in some way, to be a part of same sex marriage, then I have compromised my faith. That is all. No one is going to refuse you business if you are not asking them to do something that violates their faith. If you walked in and asked for a cake they would not mind but if two of the same sex say that they want a cake for their wedding the person with certain beliefs feels that they are compromising with something wrong. You must understand this. No one had any problem until marriage, which is Holy for the Believer and between one man and one woman, was changed.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Adultery, fornication, heterosexual sin, if not repented of, will damn a person just as much as homosexuality. We may not be homosexual but we must not think that one sin is more damning than another. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. We must all repent and surrender to JESUS CHRIST for only the BLOOD OF JESUS and the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST can get us into heaven with A HOLY, HOLY, HOLY GOD! His love has provided this and we must take it while there is time. A homosexual can be saved just like anyone else, if he or she will admit that they are sinners and in great need of CHRIST to save them, call on His name, asking Him to save them, repent, turn to him in full surrender, and follow Him out of their sinful past though the power of the Holy Spirit. I know more than one person who, before they were saved, lived in the homosexual lifestyle but now are walking with JESUS. HE has the power to change our lives. SALVATION in CHRIST ALONE is for all who will REPENT and BELIEVE and that goes for you. So I ask you will you FOLLOW JESUS. HE LOVES YOU!

          • Samuel F Waddell

            HEBREWS 7:25 JESUS SAVES!
            Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Stop judging another mans’ conscience yourself it is a Religious issue and nothing else. MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY in the BIBLE and is between one man and one woman. If a committed Christian makes a cake for this or a Pastor is forced to perform, which will be the next step down the road, then they have violated their conscience before God and not simply man. You can support putting numbers of people out of business or even putting them in prison because that is where we are probably heading in the future. But that will be the former Soviet Union, which I am old enough to remember well, and not the USA that our Father’s founded. I cannot turn young people away from God. God is who He is and Christ and He does not change. The Bible is what it is and doesn’t change to suit you or anyone. You either repent and follow Christ and His word or you don’t and suffer the consequences for eternity. That is your choice and everyones and has nothing to do with other. I hope that you will make the right choice. i do not wish eternal damnation on anyone.

          • CCJ1

            His comments are not hateful. He is speaking the truth in love. Hateful would be coddling you in your deception and not trying to share the truth. But, he sounds like he is used to being attacked. Lord, I uplift brother Waddell in Jesus’ Name. Amen.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            People always call others judgmental when someone is attempting to turn them away from the sinful pleasures that they love, but that will drag their souls to eternal destruction. We are both human beings and we have the responsibility to try to bring salvation to those who will listen. It is the same as a medical doctor when he warns his patient that if they do not change their actions then they will soon die, but he is not considered judgmental and he is only speaking of physical death. The minister is called by CHRIST to speak of eternal things which are far more important because they last forever. It is not pleasant to look at ourselves but we all must then we must look to JESUS and call upon Him to save us for only He can. My purpose is to see you saved eternally and not to make you feel good now. Hopefully you will think and turn to Christ who truly loves you.

          • Peter Leh

            which is why everyone standing for equality so important. I dont have to believe homosexuality “normal” to recognize equal protection to american citizens.

            If i can’t lease my venue to homosexuals weddings the the proper business policy would be to not offer the venue for ANY wedding.

            This would please the state requirement as the service is no longer offered to anyone, therefore no citation can be levied, AND it would satisfy mu spiritual conscience.

            to be sure this owner is in no way being martyred or persecuted. The state is simply enforcing the agreement the business owner made with the state.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            The problem is not everyone feels or believes like that. I am a minister and I could not perform and gay wedding or let it be done in the church where I pastor. Nor would i encourage the members to be involved in any way, by making a cake, or anything else that goes against their conscience. Martin luther could have recanted his call for the Roman Catholic church to repent but he told the catholic Church council that had him one trial, ” I cannot recent for my conscience is tied to the Scripture. Here I stand by the grace of God.” The problem with America today is they support the rights of some like the gay community to the expense of those who do not wish to get involved. Discrimination can go overboard and can take away the freedom of others. If nazi’s came and wanted a cake, then no one would prosecute a Christian for refusing to make it but when the homosexual come they prosecute. Even certain churches do not have to serve as soldiers in combat, they do not have to carry a weapon. So it only makes sense to pass laws that protect all when marriage is involved. Otherwise it should be fine since people are not being asked to get involved in what they are doing. Marriage is holy to the true believer and between one man and woman as scripture and homosexual sex is a sin. As you probably know. Gays can, easily find in todays culture many who will make a cake for them or sell them flowers for their ceremony.

          • Peter Leh

            “The problem is not everyone feels or believes like that.”

            nor is that a requirement for one to believe or feel anything.

            “I am a minister and I could not perform and gay wedding or let it be done in the church where I pastor.”

            as is protected by your 501C3 certification is it not? In this case the business is not a 501C3. How differently would your church policy look if it were registered with the secretary of state as a s- corp?

            “Nor would I encourage the members to be involved in any way, by making a
            cake, or anything else that goes against their conscience”

            nor has any business or employee been asked or require to do so. In Addition, this business is not required to rent its facility for weddings. In fact the business owner sets the policy for which service it will offer the public. The state did not force them to have a venue. It only requires said business to follow the law. He choose not to. It is all on him not the state

            “The problem with America today is they support the rights of some like
            the gay community to the expense of those who do not wish to get
            involved.”

            I have yet to see this happen.. examples would be beneficial. If fact it did not happen in this case. The owner is open to the public per his agreement with the secretary of state and agrees to do business within state regulations. The state regulation does not require him to have same sex marriage ceremonies or ANY ceremony. The services offered were approved and chosen by the owner. Chosen by the owner…. not forced by the state. When you are open to the public guess who gets to order? The public.

            But even if they order there are thousands of ways you may legally withhold services to ANYONE for ANY REASON except the FEW illegal ones: Religion, Age, Sex, Race, Disability, Sexual Orientation.

            What this owner wants is to have his cake and eat it at the same time. But you can;t do that. If he is open to the public then he must serve all, as listed beforehand. If not, it is the owners responsibility (not the state or the customer) to change his policy to satisfy the state regulations AND while not violating his spiritual regulations. It is not up to the state or the customer to force the owner to set up a business to satisfy the business owner’s conscience. He only wishes to satisfy his spiritual conscience and purposefully go back on what he agree to with the state initially in order to open a business: ie the owner violated his covenant with the state.

            “As you probably know. Gays can, easily find, in todays culture, many who
            will be glad to make a cake for them or sell them flowers for their
            ceremony.”

            Maybe they can… but why should they? The sign says open to the public…. not :Straights Only”. Besides we have tried this before, remember? Ask the blacks what the white southern christian told them when they tried to sit at the counter… the same you have suggested. Ask the women what the banker did when she wanted to open an account. Ask the elderly ask the disabled. Kind of makes you free dirty when one suggests what we have already done in the past. It was wrong then.. but not now? Well at the time the did not think so… just as those today think discrimination based on sexuality is a GOOD thing.

            the reason we have equal protection laws in the first place is because when given a chance to do right those in power would not or could not behave. And those in power do not tend to give that power up, willingly. 🙂

            As a christian and and business owner, i assure you i understand your argument… but those religious protections you seek are already in place. What you are arguing for , consciously or not, is “special protection” to discriminate and go around equal protection laws… like we did during Jim Crow. A dark day in christian history indeed.

            as a christian i can recognize a behavior as “sin” but still understand in a free society equal protection under the law applies to those who wish to “sin”. Drinking, gambling, porn come to mind… all “sin”, but all legal in a free society.

            notice in theses cases as well no one is be “forced” to gamble, drink or watch porn. No one is being forced to participate in a SSM. ( in the case of the owner above, what is being enforced is what he agreed to in the first place with the state without changing his policy to protect is conscience. IE it is on him)

            In the case of SSM, the protections given by a legal union (straight union) were not available to certain american while freely protecting people who were not even “married” (ie common law marriage).

            SO I can recognize the need to be for equal protection for ALL americans AND still not violate my conscience, personally, professionally, or spiritually.

            to use my religious conviction to prohibit equal protection to other americans, as the white southern christian did in the past, would be on the wrong side of history… again.

            all the best ….

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Not you or the government or anyone else, especially an unbeliever who has no respect for anyone of faith, has any mind or right to judge another man’s conscience. Only God knows the heart and not theses atheists and anti-christs of our day. That is why the Founding Father ensured FREEDOM OF RELIGION which is being taken away. Which means we are not the America that we were. Let me spell this out in capital letters for you since you refuse to understand: MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY in the BIBLE and is between one man and one woman. If a committed Christian makes a cake for this or a Pastor is forced to perform, which will be the next step down the road, then they have violated their conscience before God and not simply man. You can support putting numbers of people out of business or even putting them in prison because that is where we are probably heading in the future. But that will be the former Soviet Union, which I am old enough to remember well, and not the USA that our Father’s founded and it will all be so that someone who wants to have sex with the same sex can do so and call it marriage. Some things should not be changed and when they are it causes huge problems in society and this will be one before it is over. I can assure you that some people will not give in to this because of conscience and not bigotry. It can easily be stated that the other side are bigots against other people belief. Now to be honest I do not think that we need to discuss this further. May God bless you.

          • Peter Leh

            you sure mix religion with politics preacher. But if you feel it necessary to take your toys and go home, I’ll be out to play again tomorrow if you change you mind.

            “Which means we are not the America that we were. Let me spell this out
            in capital letters for you since you refuse to understand:”

            belittling another brother in christ is quite childish. being a conservative christian business owner myself, you do make some pretty large assumptions and accusations. Who does the scripture say is the accuser? Who is your father preacher?

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Do you read and study God’s Word? Do you apply it to your life?We all must if we follow Christ. JESUS is calling us to Discipleship. He is not interested in church membership, Though we need to be faithful in a fellowship. Follow JESUS truly there are many people in our nation now that claim the name of Christ but live un-repentant sin. Sexual sin is rampant, pornography, pre-marital sex, adultery are acceptable and expected now and virginity is a thing of the past even in many churches. Other sins as well, the love of money is involved in this. That is why homosexuality, which is un-natural sex relations, according to the Bible, is not seen as evil anymore because there is so much other sexual sin and unrepentant sin in general. Jesus made it plain that we must repent in order to be saved: Luke 13: 1-5. The blood of Jesus covers the humble and repentant. And The Founding Father’s of America made it plain in the First Amendment that we are to have freedom of religion. It seems that both cannot operate under the same government so sexual immorality has been chosen. This means that God’s Judgment is coming. He is love but also Holy, Holy, Holy. My father, a WW2 Marine, who is now with JESUS, said years ago, as we had a family devotion, If God judged Israel and let the be defeated, then we should take warning as Americans. If we turn away from God, as they did, how can we expect not to be judged. I hope that you will be a true follower of Christ, in these last days, and not a fake one. I hope that you will not compromise and that you will repent and walk in holiness being prepared for the Coming of the Lord. Who will come as a thief in the night.

          • Peter Leh

            Preacher your are off topic.

            While you and I agree on biblical principles the fact is the owner while knowing the law choose to break it and claim martyrdom rather than satisfy his conscience and the state regulations.

            Choice does not a martyr make.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            shadrach meshach and abednego

          • Peter Leh

            “shadrach meshach and abednego”

            and?

          • CCJ1

            You don’t sound at all like a follower of Jesus.

          • Peter Leh

            “You don’t sound at all like a follower of Jesus.”

            just because I disagree with you? That is an odd requirement to be a follower of christ. 😉

          • CCJ1

            No, just the tenor of your posts. There’s no fruit. I’m not saying you are a false convert, but you sound like one? It’s not too late for repentance…

            I’m not into perpetuating a long, drawn out conversation, but I needed to comment briefly.

          • Peter Leh

            Thank you. I understand. While i could get into long theological conversations ( I could reveal my credentials….) but that is not what I am interested in .

            to be sure, I am open to correction. Just show me were I am wrong. The body of Christ is not homogeneous so why are we surprised and even call out another believer’s salvation?

            i suggest the lack of fruit is when the fruit come with a cookie cutter

          • CCJ1

            Exactly. Try going to Muslim bakeries.They won’t do it. Why are they not news? Why are there no lawsuits against them? Because the enemy is against Christianity. that’s his target.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            True. They know that Christians will not retaliate or harm them, but a Muslim might and Muslims are protected by this liberal administration. So the Christian is the only target. This, as you stated, also shows the truth in CHRIST, for the enemy is against Him and not against another falsehood.

    • scotty501

      Mom You don’t understand is If the door is opened to religion in business where would it stop? People could start denying service for all sort of religious subjective things.
      The best approach for christians is to honor the business license they agreed to and stop bringing reproach on christianity. All bigotry does is turn youth away from God…and you are a party to that.

    • Peter Leh

      This is why I have no respect for the “gay” community”

      You have no respect for an american citizen who simply orders what is on the menu?

      are christian crazy or lack basic business sense?

      • infowolf1

        To be safe Christians might want to stop hosting or supplying any events at all to avoid this. BUT AS FOR WHAT’S ON THE MENU, if someone wants something poisonous and rotten the restaurant refuses to special order for them, so what if they refuse? something they wouldn’t want their clientele to hear could be had from them? something they would feel bad about serving? how about foie gras which involves cruelty to the geese to produce? why shouldn’t the restaurant – or baker or hotel or wedding hoster – be free to decline?

        • scotty501

          agree, have them stop doing business if they can’t follow the law they agreed to. your other scenario is child like

          • Horatio Socks

            Have you brought this to your nearest Muslim business or Jewish eatery yet? I suspect not!

            The law is unconstitutional since any business is supposed to be a free enterprise and able to conduct business with whom they choose.

            I seems you’re not willing to see that YOUR position is discrimination as well. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t TELL someone what they had to do because it doesn’t fit YOUR position.

        • acontraryview

          “why shouldn’t the restaurant – or baker or hotel or wedding hoster – be free to decline?”

          They are. However, if the restaurant, in your example, DID offer foods that were poisonous and rotten or foie gras, the restaurant would NOT be free to determine who would be able to be served those items and who would not.

        • Peter Leh

          “BUT AS FOR WHAT’S ON THE MENU, if someone wants something poisonous and rotten the restaurant”

          the restaurant has poison and rotten items available to order?

          Seem like a health violation. 🙂

          For argument sake lets just assume there are no health violations.

          please continue

      • Horatio Socks

        How about…. maybe they hold standards because that’s what they believe? They seem to be doing pretty good business otherwise.

        • Peter Leh

          “How about…. maybe they hold standards because that’s what they believe?”
          Seem a bit backward to believe in discrimination, no? Then complain when an american citizen orders off the menu

          “They seem to be doing pretty good business otherwise”

          as do i.. so why have i not been penalized for violating my business policy?

          • Horatio Socks

            ‘Seem a bit backward to believe in discrimination, no? Then complain when an american citizen orders off the menu’

            Have you brought this to your nearest Muslim business or Jewish eatery yet? I suspect not!

            So, it seems backwards that you’re not willing to see that YOUR position is discrimination itself. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t TELL someone what they had to do because it doesn’t fit YOUR position.

            I don’t care what you do with YOUR business. Again, a first grader can get this simple concept. You SHOULD NOT dictate what OTHER business people want to do with THEIR business.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “You SHOULD NOT dictate what OTHER business people want to do with THEIR business.”

            But it’s not other business owners doing the dictating, it’s the government, with anti-discrimination laws. (which have sexual orientation as a ‘protected class’ in only some states, though)

          • Peter Leh

            “Have you brought this to your nearest Muslim business or Jewish eatery yet? I suspect not!”

            muslims and jewish business owner fall under the same regulations I do.

            “So, it seems backwards that you’re not willing to see that YOUR position is discrimination itsel”

            serving all is discrimination? Gotcha. 🙂

            “If it weren’t, you wouldn’t TELL someone what they had to do because it doesn’t fit YOUR position.”

            I am telling someone what to do? Gotcha. 🙂

            “I don’t care what you do with YOUR business.”

            nor I you, that is until it violates equal protection.

            “You SHOULD NOT dictate what OTHER business people want to do with THEIR business.”

            I dictate? Gotcha.

            the law is for all to read. I dont tell anyone what to do… i just call out their irrationality and irregularity.

            Integrity is still a christian virtue. Making false accusations is from the devil… which are you?

    • scotty501

      MOM no one cares about your uneducated opinion…just follow the fricken law and shut up blah blah blah

      • DanH

        Flagged.
        Get out of here, you rude troll.

        • scotty501

          “He should not be here said the fish in the pot. He should not be here when your mother is not” The Cat in the Hat

        • scotty501

          still here dan!

      • Diaris

        War on women.

        • scotty501

          how?

    • acontraryview

      “and they are the most intolerant group I have ever come across.”

      How is expecting a business to operate according to the law “intolerant”? Would it be a sign of intolerance if a Hispanic person brought legal action against a business if they had been turned away for being Hispanic?

      “It is very obvious that they shop Christian businesses, knowing that they will be refused, so they can sue.”

      Basis?

      “They would never go to a mosque and ask them to perform a “perverted” ceremony.”

      The B&B is not a church.

      “They will never speak out against some in Islamic countries whom are murdering “gays” by throwing them off buildings and publicly executing them. ”

      That is false.

      “Every group, except for Christians, are pushing back in the culture.”

      What groups would those be?

      “Both Republican (RHINOS) and especially Democrats are enemies of the Christian faith.”

      How so?

      “Do we want to have religious freedoms or not?”

      What constitutionally protected religious freedoms do you not have?

      • Samuel F Waddell

        A Hispanic person is given his race by God at birth. The GAY lifestyle is a choice to do the sex act with a person of the same sex. I know ex-gay christian believer and there are quite a few. I have never met an ex- Hispanic. We both know that it is just a pretense that you are born gay. It is the LGBT strategy. But in private conversation most gays will say that we are sexual beings and can choose either. I have heard them try to get obviously heterosexual men to become gay. It has happened to me personally but of course I refused. Many will say in conversation that they were molested and learned it that way or some other reason. Some are broke and need money and let gays do this to them for big bucks. I worked in the French Quarter and constantly saw wealthy men drive up and try to pick up young men most who were’t gay. I even counseled and young man who went to party with some strangers, thinking that he was meeting a girl but got drugged and gang raped by homosexuals, which filmed it and back mailed him into not telling anyone. We both know that all this has a very dark side when the lights are turned on. Maybe some people try to be faithful for a while but very few, if any are. It is just the way it is. Isn’t it. I don’t hate you. I don’t hate anyone and I am not suing gays either. Just don’t someone to try to force me to be involved in a gay marriage with the threat of a law suit for 100,000 $ which I don’t have.

        • Guest

          Samuel, No one need offer wedding services to the public if they can’t in good conscience provide them as the law requires which includes people who’s beliefs allow people to marry regardless of their sexes don’t offer them to the public at all.

          As to your argument about hispanics – what difference does that make? Religion is 100% a choice, yet it is a civil right. I have people I know who are 15/16 caucasian but consider themselves native american, and laws used to legally consider someone black if they had had just one black great grand parent. The civil rights laws take human qualities off the table, religion, race, ethnicity, sex – all are equally protected because using a criteria to reject someone because of any of them is agains their civil rights.

          And you talk of the people being wronged as suing for a dollar amount – they don’t do that. They put in a complaint and the state issues a fine, and difference states have different philosophies on how much that should be.

          The florist shop in Washington has been fined $1000 fine and $1 in attorney fees – yep the business owner could pay a $1001 fine, continue running as they are now (not offering custom wedding floral services at all) and operate both legally and in keeping with their conscience – they haven’t.

          Oregon’s BOLI has a different philosophy, and charges large fines for everyone. Yes the bakery shop was fined $138,000 but the same man who heads the BOLI in 2012 awarded a Christian dental hygienist $348,000 who was being pressured by her boss to attend a business meeting sponsored by the Church of Scientology. She didn’t even attend, he was just asking her to repeatedly. Obviously Oregon’s philosophy about fines are different.

          Again, can’t sell something to the general public as their rights require then don’t offer to sell it to them at all. That is the only solution that doesn’t create a new ‘right’ of religious discrimination.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            It isn’t the Christians who are attacking you. That should be obvious. We just believe the Bible is the Word of God and no one is going to re-write it changing what it states. People can see who is prosecuting and taking large sums of money, putting people out of business. You know you could just go to a baker who agrees with you. That is what I’d do and leave people who you will never change alone but we probably know that this will not happen. Activists have their plan. It is obvious that these people were targeted and scammed because of their faith. As for the American people, now, and how they think. All nations rise and fall. And I believe that we are witnessing the fall of America from within. America, though never perfect, rose when there were a large number of people who had Christian faith, clean morals, strong families, and a hard working middle class. At least that is true about America and Britain. Even Germany was a strong Christian country until they let liberal theology ruin them and look what happened. Just because the majority of the people of a country think a certain way it doesn’t mean that their thinking is correct. History is proof of that. If the Bible is God’s Word, I say that for your benefit for I am certain that it is, but just for the record. If it is then we are in the last days, which is described in detail in prophesies through out the Scripture, and what it describes is today’s world. If it is not then how could people as long ago as 2000 to 3000 years write with such striking detail about the day in which we live? Think about it. I know that I have changed the subject but do your own study.

          • Guest

            Of course it isn’t Christians, they wouldn’t have discriminated against the customers in the first place.

            And you know that the bakery could have just not offered to sell something they knew they weren’t going to sell as the law requires.

            These aren’t activist attacks. We know that in most of these cases the individuals have called other venues or were returning customers. And the Germans were seduced by the same call that Christians are today, blaming others for their woes and being incited to act in decidedly unChristlike ways towards them.

            And you see the fall of America in people not having a right to religious discrimination, I see it in a type of Christian demanding a right to religious discrimination. The end times are marked by people calling themselves Christian who are putting judgement before mercy, mega church’s inciting people with fear and anger, and the falling away from the churches that teach what Christ told us to practice, love and forgiveness.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            The end times are marked by compromising God’s word, preaching grace as lasciviousness. Jude 1.

          • Guest

            so all churches that tolerate the divorced and remarried for other than adultery?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            “In Rumania you are allowed to say as much as you like that God is good. You are not allowed to say that the Devil is bad. St. John the Baptist could have saved his life if he had said: “Repent because the kingdom of heaven is near.” Nobody would have touched him. He was touched when he said, “You, Herod, are bad.”

            If Christ would have delivered a thousand “Sermons on the Mount” they would not have crucified Him. They crucified Him when He said, “You vipers,” then He was crucified.

            In Rumania you can say God is good but you can’t say “communism is cruel, they commit atrocities, it is a crime to poison children with atheism.” If you do this you go to prison. There are many priests, rabbis, and pastors who compromise and don’t put the dot on the “I.” There exists the real church and the real religion and that which compromises.”

            — Richard Wurmbrand, U.S. Senate, Communist Exploitation of Religion, 1966

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            And God will avenge.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Amen! And they cannot force God’s people to sin either they can only attempt to. We can choose to obey God no matter the cost. Like our brothers and sister in the middle east, China, the north of Nigeria and other places. JESUS is coming!

        • acontraryview

          “A Hispanic person is given his race by God at birth.”

          No, an Hispanic person is Hispanic because his birth parents are Hispanic. God doesn’t make the decision about race.

          “The GAY lifestyle is a choice to do the sex act with a person of the same sex.”

          So then celibate gays are not gay, since they do not engage in sexual acts?

          “We both know that it is just a pretense that you are born gay.”

          No, that is not what I know. The exact nature of sexuality is unknown – both hetero and homo. How is it that you know for certain that sexuality is not a born trait?

          “But in private conversation most gays will say that people are sexual beings and can choose either.”

          Really? You’ve spoken with “most gays”? I’ve had a LOT of conversations with gay people. I have never had any of them tell me such a thing.

          “I don’t hate anyone and I am not suing gays either.”

          What reason would you have to sue gays?

          “Just don’t try to force me to be involved in a gay marriage with the threat of a law suit for 100,000 $ which I don’t have.”

          I wouldn’t. I would suggest, however, that if you are not willing to operate your business in accordance with the law, that you consider a different option.

          “I would have to go to prison!”

          Well you wouldn’t want that! According to Ben Carson, prison turns people gay.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            No christians are attacking you. There has never been a mass execution of gay people in the USA not even when America was a strongly Christian nation. Christians don’t want to attack you. It is not in the teachings of JESUS. WE MUST BE MERCIFUL but also HOLY. We want freedom to practice our faith without someone trying to force us to do something contrary to scripture that is all. The Bible says what it says and a person either lets the truth, in it, change them or they are judged one day for rejecting. That is what it states and what we believe so you can see why we cannot be involved in a gay marriage ceremony. We have nothing personal against you. We might even be a friend if we don’t have to compromise our faith. We are just believers and pattern our lives, by God’s grace, and by God’s Word. That is all. As for the law. When the law is lawful and does not violate God’s higher law then we follow them but when they violate God’s law then we love and fear God. There is nothing hateful about that. I am amazed at how many modern Americans mock and ridicule the Christian faith and then speak about tolerance and bigotry. This is hypocrisy you know. We also know that there has been hypocrisy in churches. I am not Catholic but pedophile Priests, is beyond horrible, and some preachers doing evil things as well. I see why people have an excuse to mock. But if a person looks truly at JESUS CHRIST, our Lord, they can only bow their knee in humble worship!

          • acontraryview

            “No christians are attacking you.”

            Agreed. Nor did I ever suggest they were.

            “We want freedom to practice our faith without someone trying to force us to do something contrary to scripture that is all.”

            You are free to practice your faith and no one is “forcing” anyone to do something they believe is contrary to scripture. Owning a business is a choice. What products and services the business offers is a choice. There is no forcing.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “A Hispanic person is given his race by God at birth. The GAY lifestyle is a choice to do the sex act with a person of the same sex.”

          False, but either way, it’s irrelevant. The law protects gay people from discrimination by businesses. If you disagree with that, you can act to change the law, but until someone does, it has to be obeyed.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            JESUS loves all sinners but He commands us all to repent and follow him and that means, turning away from our sin though the power of the Holy Spirit, nothing has changed, God does not change with the times, He is eternally the same and need no change, perfect in all His way, only that our society has become apostate and ungodly. I say this the kindest way that I can, sodomy, homosexuality is a sin and an abomination and God’s Word plainly shows us this I have read this many times in the Bible. if we love and appreciate JESUS then we must put Him first above our own ways and opinions and idols. Of course there are many more sins as well equally destructive to our souls. We just happen to be on this subject. Turn to CHRIST with all your heart and be saved. Part of repentance is agreeing with God’s Word and not man’s opinions then surrendering to Jesus and letting him cleanse us. Call on Him with a sincere, humble and repentant heart and he will. Do this for your own benefit. Hell is eternal and so is HEAVEN. I would like to see you in HEAVEN.

      • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

        Protection. Love protects a young soul from the devil who is pushing heroine in the streets. Those who allow a young soul to fall into bondage, hold that soul in contempt. The preamble of the Constitution says “to secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity.” You will know the legislators by their fruit.

        John 8:44 KJV
        “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
        He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
        because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of
        his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

        • acontraryview

          “Protection”

          Protection from what?

          “The preamble of the Constitution says “to secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity.” ”

          Did you have a point?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            The Constitution was written for, and therefore protects, a moral people, not an immoral people.

          • acontraryview

            The Constitution applies to all citizens. What is viewed as moral and immoral varies from person to person.

          • Horatio Socks

            You don’t believe that Contrary.

          • acontraryview

            What is it you think I don’t believe? That the Constitution applies to all citizens? Or that what is viewed as moral and immoral varies from person to person?

          • Horatio Socks

            ‘The Constitution applies to all citizens. What is viewed as moral and immoral varies from person to person.’

            I do not believe you truly believe that. Nor do most people in almost all issues when push comes to shove.

          • acontraryview

            I do believe that the Constitution applies to all citizens. Do you not believe that?

            While there are certainly things that most people share a common belief as to their morality, there are many things that vary from person to person as to what is moral and what is not. Do you think that is not true?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            You cannot apply a dialectical paradigm to a didactic contract. You cannot make a contract of Shall Nots fit into your view where everything is justified. You just can’t get there.

          • acontraryview

            What did I say that would cause you to incorrectly conclude that I hold a view where “everything is justified”.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            The minute you go down that road, everything IS justified.

            Education Secretary Margaret Spellings was asked for her reaction to census figures that showed traditional families were in decline. She declined to express concern, noting that she was a single mom and that there were “lots of different types of family.”

          • acontraryview

            “The minute you go down that road, everything IS justified.”

            That is false. The mere belief that something is moral is insufficient, in and of itself, to justify acting upon that belief.

            “She declined to express concern, noting that she was a single mom and that there were “lots of different types of family.””

            Did you have a point?

            “Whether the people believe in the right to bear arms varies from person to person does not matter. ”

            Agreed. However, the people are allowed to place limitations on rights, as they do with all rights. For instance, citizens are not allowed to own nuclear bombs. Regarding free speech, citizens are not allowed to go out in front of their homes in the middle of the night with a bullhorn and start expressing themselves.

            “The right to bear arms Shall Not be infringed, except when we can justify it – is a dialectical paradigm.”

            You seem to have forgotten the part of the Constitution which says “promote the general welfare and safety”. That allows for restrictions on rights. If restrictions are put into place that are viewed as unduly infringe upon the rights of citizens, the judicial branch decides if, in fact, they do.

            If we use your logic, then citizens should be allowed to say whatever they want at any time they want and in any location they want. Citizens should be allowed, for example, to engage in human sacrifice as part of their expression of religious belief. Citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs.

            Our rights have always had restrictions. They have never been carte blanche. Nor should they be. But that does not mean that any restriction is justified. There must be rational and compelling reasons for the restrictions.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Not true, again and again the courts have proven so.

            Congress shall make no law respecting an
            establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
            abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
            people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
            redress of grievances.

          • acontraryview

            “Not true”

            What, specifically, did I say that was not true?

            “Please show me where the founders gave that to you.”

            “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Washington gives us the paradigm at the time of the founding. Where does the Constitution says you can put limitations on the Bill of Rights?

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask again:

            What, specifically, did i say that was not true?

            George Washington’s personal opinion is relevant, how?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Without Washington you would not have a country.

          • acontraryview

            “Without Washington you would not have a country”

            There is no way to state that with certainty.

            “Washington stated that our nation was founded on Bible morality and anyone who would subvert those principles was an enemy of free government.”

            Really? Please cite where Washington stated that anyone who subverted Biblical morality was an enemy of a free state.

            I’ll ask yet again:

            What, specifically, did I say that was not true?

            George Washington’s personal opinion is relevant, how?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            PRIN’CIPLE, noun [Latin principium, beginning.]

            Ground; foundation; that which supports an assertion, an action, or a series of actions or of reasoning.

            A general truth; a law comprehending many subordinate truths; as the principles of morality, of law, of government, etc.

            PRIN’CIPLE, verb transitive To establish or fix in tenets; to impress with any tenet, good or ill; chiefly used in the participle.

            “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of FREE GOVERNMENT. Who that is a SINCERE FRIEND to it can look with indifference upon attempts to SHAKE the FOUNDATION of the fabric?” – George Washington

            We would not have a country without Washington, if you have evidence to prove otherwise then SHOW IT, INSTEAD OF YOUR WEASEL ARGUMENTS of “There is no way to state that with certainty,” which practically reveals your disdain for at least one of the founders. Fact: WE WON the WAR!

            If Washington would have lost the Revolutionary war, this nation would not have made it. Not only that but this: “As the Articles of Confederation melted down, the leaders in Congress came to Washington and begged him to help them save the crumbling new nation. His question of, “Have I not yet done ENOUGH for my country?” – Evan Quietsch

            The FOUNDERS believed that principles were not just handed to you in some predetermined hegelian outcome fairy land of grey area where “What is viewed as moral and immoral varies from person to person.” They believed that there was right, and there was wrong behavior and were willing to fight for principle, even shed blood if necessary. The land of “What is viewed as moral and immoral varies from person to person” would have been called surrender without a fight.

            You cannot understand the founding without understanding the founders paradigm, one of obedience and reverence for things like higher authority.

            Most EVERYONE thought and acted as Thomas Jefferson did in his day. In his letter “To the President of the United States Monticello,” dated Sep. 9, 1792, Jefferson concluded with the following, and I quote:

            “In the meantime & ever I am with great and sincere affection & respect, dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant”

            The founders reverenced certain principles, they embodied those principles in the Constitution, and in a REPUBLIC form of government.

            REPUB’LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]

            1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

            I made the STATEMENT:

            “The Constitution was written for, and therefore protects, a moral people, not an immoral people.”

            I was paraphrasing John Adams who said:

            “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

            This is a statement by one of the most prominent of the founding fathers.

            You answered my statement with your statement:

            “The Constitution applies to all citizens. What is viewed as moral and immoral varies from person to person.”

            It is a statement of contempt for what Adams said.

            You are paraphrasing Karl Marx:

            “In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred.”

            That is a paradigm, a way of thinking. There is no such thing as truth or lie.

            Or Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain: “a psychological classification system.”

            “We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places.”

            Again, it’s all relative. There are no absolute truths.

            It is a paradigm, a way of thinking. If you do not believe in absolutes, then you are simply waiting for the next theory to come along that will shatter your current illusion. You are living an illusion.

            When you form a statement in the light of dialectical philosophy, you cannot make a true statement.

          • acontraryview

            I’ll ask again: Please cite where Washington stated that anyone who subverted Biblical morality was an enemy of a free state.

            “Fact: WE WON the WAR!”

            Because France intervened. Without their help it is highly doubtful that we would have been victorious. We were several outmatched by the British.

            “We would not have a country without Washington, if you have evidence to prove otherwise then SHOW IT, INSTEAD OF YOUR WEASEL ARGUMENTS of “There is no way to state that with certainty,” ”

            Suggesting that we cannot know an outcome if an alternative sequence of events had occurred is not “weasel argument”. There is no doubt that Washington played a very important role in the war. To say for certain, however, that had he not been involved, there would not have been another that would have played an equally important role, or that the eventual outcome would not have been the same, is something that cannot be said with certainty.

            “which practically reveals your disdain for at least one of the founders.”

            I do not have any disdain for Washington. On the contrary, I have great admiration for him.

            “The land of “What is viewed as moral and immoral varies from person to person” would have been called surrender without a fight.”

            That is false. People can have a shared belief as to certain aspects of morality while at the same time having different beliefs as to the totality of morality. Washington is a good example. After the war, he seldom attended church nor did he partake of the sacrament, both of which, at the time, were viewed as immoral.

            Within the Christian faith, which all utilize the same text, there not agreement as to the totality of what is moral and what is not. Some believe that drinking alcohol is immoral – others do not. Some believe that gambling is immoral – others do not. Some believe the death penalty is immoral – others do not. There are many other examples. To suggest that morality does vary by individual is simply false.

            “Saying there is no such thing as truth or lie.”

            That is not what Marx said.

            “If you do not believe in absolutes, ”

            Provide me with an absolute in the context of our discussion.

            “You are living an illusion.”

            What is it you are living?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Allright, since you are pretty dense, let’s see if I can help you with your first point. Where in the following statement do you not see that Washington stated that anyone who subverted Biblical morality was an enemy of a free state?

            “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of FREE GOVERNMENT. Who that is a SINCERE FRIEND to it can look with indifference upon attempts to SHAKE the FOUNDATION of the fabric?” – George Washington

            Washington states that national morality cannot prevail in exclusion of religious principle. The religious principle he is referring to is Bible principle. He goes on to say that morality is a necessary spring of popular government. In other words, morality is common to the people. So integral is Bible morality that it extends to every species of free government.

            Who that is a SINCERE FRIEND to it, that is, a sincere friend to free government, can look with indifference upon attempts to SHAKE the FOUNDATION, that is the Bible, the of the fabric, ~ i.e. Free government.

          • acontraryview

            As a footnote: President George Washington appointed David Humphreys as Commissioner Plenipotentiary on March 30, 1795, in order to negotiate a treaty with the Barbary powers.

            That treaty reads, in part; “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            — Done in duplicate, in the warlike City of Algiers, in the presence of Almighty God, the 28th day of August, in the year of Jesus Christ, 1816, and in the year of the Hegira, 1231, and the 6th day of the Moon Shawal.

            Take your communist propaganda somewhere else. You’re boring.

          • acontraryview

            “Done in duplicate, in the warlike City of Algiers, in the presence of Almighty God, the 28th day of August, in the year of Jesus Christ, 1816, and in the year of the Hegira, 1231, and the 6th day of the Moon Shawl.”

            Where did you get the “in the presence of Almighty God, the 28th day of August, in the year of Jesus Christ, 1816” from?

            “The Arabic copy does not contain Article 11.”

            That is a matter of debate. Regardless, it does appear in the English version and was passed unanimously by the Senate with Article 11.

            “You’re boring.”

            If you find me boring, you are certainly free to stop responding.

            I’ll ask yet again:

            What, specifically, did I say that was not true?

            George Washington’s personal opinion is relevant, how?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            You didn’t concede that I cited where Washington stated that anyone who subverted Biblical morality was an enemy of a free state. Why should I waste my time on you?

            You are incapable of comprehending, because you don’t have a rock to hold to onto as a foundation. You are like a reed shaking in the wind. You react to certain stimuli in a certain way. It is impossible for you to discern authentic information. Even if I prove that black is black and white is white, I cannot change your basic perception and logic of behavior. You’re a Pavlov dog. You see yourself, (emphasis on you) as more sophisticated than the rest of us.

            “I see, primarily, as part of this softening up process in America, the liquidation of our attitudes on what we used to recognize as right and wrong, what we used to accept as absolute moral standards. We now confuse moral standards with the sophistication of dialectical materialism, with a Communist crackpot Communist crackpot theology which teaches that everything changes, and that what is right or wrong, good or bad, changes as well. So nothing they say is really good or bad. There is no such thing as truth or a lie; and any belief we actually held was simply your being unsophisticated.”
            –Edward Hunter testimony to Congress on Communist Brainwashing

          • acontraryview

            “You didn’t concede that I cited where Washington stated that anyone who subverted Biblical morality was an enemy of a free state.”

            That’s because no where in the quote you provided do the words “enemy of a free state” appear. Why would I concede something that isn’t true?

            I’ll ask again:

            Where did you get the “in the presence of Almighty God, the 28th day of August, in the year of Jesus Christ, 1816” from?

            What, specifically, did I say that was not true?

            George Washington’s personal opinion is relevant, how?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            That’s because no where in the quote you provided do the words “enemy of
            a free state” appear. Why would I concede something that isn’t true?

            Oh, come on, you lack the logic to understand this?

            Who that is a SINCERE FRIEND to it can look with indifference upon attempts to SHAKE the FOUNDATION of the fabric?

            “in the presence of Almighty God, the 28th day of August, in the year of Jesus Christ, 1816”

            I got that from the wrong treaty, sorry, I made a mistake.

            What did you say that WAS true? I haven’t seen anything but ambiguity.

            George Washington didn’t give an opinion. He was one of the founders. He gave a blueprint.

          • acontraryview

            “Oh, come on, you lack the logic to understand this?”

            You put forth that Washington “said” enemy of the state. He did not. That is your interpretation. And, no, it is not logical to assume that the only alternative to not being a sincere friend is being an enemy.

            “What did you say that WAS true?”

            If you can’t cite what I said that was untrue and provide backup for why it was not true, then retract your statement that I said things that were untrue.

            “George Washington didn’t give an opinion. He was one of the founders. He gave a blueprint.”

            The quote you provided was Washington’s opinion. It had nothing to do with the blueprint of our nation.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            “The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!”
            ~ George Washington

            And that you can count on.

          • acontraryview

            “And that you can count on. ”

            Oh yes. Goodness knows that the US was the only place where people rose up against the government. That didn’t happen anywhere else….well except all over the world.

            “You haven’t a clue where your freedom comes from.”

            Actually, I do know where it comes from. I’m curious thought, why do you think I do not?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            “Oh yes. Goodness knows that the US was the only place where people rose up against the government.”

            That’s not what Washington said.

            Actually, I do know where it comes from. I’m curious thought, why do you think I do not?

            Where does your freedom come from?

          • acontraryview

            “That’s not what Washington said.”

            Excuse me? NOW you sticking to the actual words that Washington said? How hypocritical. Regarding your earlier quote you said: “Oh, come on, you lack the logic to understand this?” Does that apply only to you?

            Tell me, what do you believe Washington meant when he said: “…than live on his knees!”

            “Where does your freedom come from?”

            Prior to answering you question, I’ll wait for an answer to mine. it was:

            Actually, I do know where it comes from. I’m curious though, why do you think I do not?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Washington wasn’t referring to communist revolutions or even the French revolution. The French revolution replaced the monarchy with the state. The French revolution laid some of the foundation for communism/collectivism.

            “Actually, I do know where it comes from. I’m curious though, why do you think I do not?”

            Because you have a dialectic paradigm. The same paradigm that the devil used in the Garden.

          • acontraryview

            “Washington wasn’t referring to communist revolutions or even the French revolution.”

            How do you know? What was he referring to?

            “Because you have a dialectic paradigm.”

            That is not true. Regardless, how is that relevant to the issue of my not knowing where my freedom comes from?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Washington reverenced a patriarchal structure as evidenced by the Declaration that there are certain unalienable rights endowed by a Creator. They held God as their ultimate authority, over the king. For example, in his letter “To the President of the United States Monticello,” dated Sep. 9, 1792, Jefferson concluded with the following, and I quote:

            “In the meantime & ever I am with great and sincere affection & respect, dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,”

            The founders were obedient to higher authority. It is a top down structure. The French revolution and communists overthrow the patriarchal structure. They despise the patriarchal structure, because it is God’s structure.

            That is how I know.

          • acontraryview

            Saying that their are certain rights (among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that are endowed by their Creator (note: they did not use the word God – rather they specifically chose “their Creator – indicating that different people may have different views as to who their Creator may be) is not the same as saying that they hold God as the ultimate authority in issues of government.

            Jefferson was referring to Washington, not God. His letter was not to God.

            So you don’t know….you simply have your opinion. Got it. Thanks.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            It is a structure of obedience.

            In Freuerbach thesis #4 Karl Marx said: “Once you discover the earthly family is the secret of the heavenly family, you must destroy the former through theory and praxis!”

            What Marx was saying, was the traditional family that rebukes and chastens their children is working out God’s system of righteousness. One you figure out that this system is God’s secret, destroy the family! All liberation movements are founded on Marx’s silencing of God, and the family’s father’s rebuke. Because if you can silence the rebuke, you can liberate SIN!

            The people in Washington’s day reverenced higher authority, i.e. God, parents, elders etc. The were obedient to higher authority. Since the 60’s, that paradigm has been obliterated.

            Ecclesiastes 12 King James Version (KJV)

            “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;”

            ” indicating that different people may have different views as to who their Creator may be”

            Just like the founders writing the Declaration in English, indicated that different people may have different views as to what language they spoke.

          • xram

            Seriously? In the context of the last half of the 18th century, no rational person would have understood anything other than God as being the object of the term Creator. There were differing concepts of God in colonial culture at the time, though not nearly so much as now. References to providence in the Declaration, as well as the terms Creator and providence in the discourse and literature of the time would limit the notion to monotheism, of the type indicating a personal God. Even the usage of providence shows that this is not just deism, but rather a personal deity who takes an interest in human affairs, guides them and offers help. It would be the kind of God consistent with the general Christian consensus growing out of the First Great Awakening that had swept the colonies in the years leading up to the revolution, or at the very least, the type of unitarianism becoming popular in some circles in New England. No matter how you cut it, though, there is no honest historical evaluation that will arrive at the conclusion that the Creator referenced would have been considered anything other than a personal, monotheist, transcendent God who was the source of the universe.

            The pantheism of the romanticist movement would not arrive in force for another 30 years or more in America, and the atheism of the French Revolution (which ended in a bloodbath and then Napoleon), was hardly a blip on the screen in America. Even skeptics like Jefferson (no atheist) were steeped in the morals of the Gospels, and drew from them as a source.

            You are really making a huge and irrational leap to try to get out of the very clear statement by the Founders that the unalienable human rights which would be later protected in the Bill of Rights, are not grounded in a transcendent, personal God. In any case, if you deny the existence of such a God then certainly YOUR belief in objective and unalienable human rights is irrational to the core. So on that basis, neither I nor anyone else has the least moral obligation to give a rat’s behind about your so-called rights.

          • acontraryview

            “There were differing concepts of God in colonial culture at the time”

            Hence the use of the word “Creator” to avoid any confusion that the document was referring specifically to the Christian god.

            “Even skeptics like Jefferson (no atheist) were steeped in the morals of the Gospels, and drew from them as a source.”

            “Christianity is the most perverted system shone on man” – Thomas Jefferson

            “are not grounded in a transcendent, personal God.”

            Please note the word “personal” not Christian.

            “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible” – Benjamin Franklin

            “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it” – John Adams

            “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon” – George Washington

            “Even skeptics like Jefferson (no atheist) were steeped in the morals of the Gospels, and drew from them as a source.”

            Are you referring to Thomas Jefferson? The man who wrote his own version of the Bible and removed all references to Jesus being God as well as removing all mention of miracles? The Jefferson who, when he built the University of Virginia purposely did not include a chapel on campus because of his belief that it was not relevant to education? That Jefferson?

            “In any case, if you deny the existence of such a God”

            I have a strong belief in God.

            “YOUR belief in objective and unalienable human rights is irrational to the core.”

            In what way would it be irrational?

            “neither I nor anyone else has the least moral obligation to give a rat’s behind about your so-called rights.”

            Agreed. If you feel no moral obligation to “give a rat’s behind” about the rights of others, then that is your choice. Unfortunate, but nonetheless your choice.

          • xram

            Good at straw man arguments aren’t you? Yes, Jefferson did and say the things you ascribe to him, all of which are irrelevant to my argument. What he admired about Jesus were the ethical and moral teachings and he removed the miracles, etc., rather than just throwing the Bible overboard in toto, precisely to preserve those teachings. The differing concepts of God I refer to are nevertheless common in their descent from and attachment to monotheism and the notion of God as personal. Then there is this interesting tidbit about early American culture –

            Lawrence Cremin’s multi-volume study, American Education. Now Cremin was a liberal and a progressive, so he had no particular fondness for America’s Christian history, and yet in his definitive four-volume history, he was faced with the clear facts:

            1. The Bible was “the single most important cultural influence in the lives of Anglo-Americans” (Cremin, 1:40). It thus formed the core of American education, in learning to read, write, as well as morality, ethics, and the meaning of life.

            This is well attested in numerous scholarly works – England Before and After Wesley by John Bready (who set out to prove the contrary) goes into great detail to document this. It is also a fact that many Christians were directly involved in the founding. But I never argued that the government was organized to be a Christian government. It was not. I merely pointed out that the notion of unalienable rights was inherited from the Hebrew tradition, deeply in-bedded in Western culture through Christianity, particularly the Protestant Reformation.

            “are not grounded in a transcendent, personal God.”
            You have a source for that one?

            The belief in objective, universal, unalienable human rights is indeed irrational absent the existence of a transcendent, personal Creator. Otherwise, there is just no ontological grounding for such rights. Whether or not your belief is irrational depends very much on your ontology. My impression from reading your post was that you were defending some type of atheism. Nevertheless, a simple belief in God doesn’t solve the problem. It depends very much on what kind of God.

            I do give a rat’s behind about human rights, because I know that such rights exist and are universally valid. However, the typical supporter of the gay agenda that I have run into holds to a worldview that undermines and contradicts the existence of such rights. It is ironic that they smuggle principles into their arguments that are ultimately derived from Christianity and use them to argue against Christian positions. Now that is irrational.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Well, I guess if my response is going to be censored, then you can enjoy your illusion where there are no facts, only open ended answers.

          • acontraryview

            What response was censored?

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            I said that in Freuerbach thesis #4 Karl Marx said: “Once you discover the earthly family is the secret of the heavenly family, you must destroy the former through theory and praxis.” What Marx was saying was that the traditional family that rebukes and chastens it’s children is working out God’s system of righteousness, i.e. is God’s secret. Once you discover this destroy the family. If you can silence the rebuke, you can liberate sin. Jefferson was of the traditional paradigm that was accountable to higher authority. Since the 1960’s on, few can properly interpret the founders, because they can’t stomach their paradigm. The founders represent that traditional family that the left is trying to destroy. So they have revised the historical record to come to a consensus that does not offend anybody.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Treaty of Paris 1783

            In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

            It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third,
            by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
            defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages a…

      • Horatio Socks

        The law is intolerant itself.

      • Horatio Socks

        This is REALLY simple:
        They do not believe based on RELIGIOUS reasons, in homosexual ‘marriage’.
        Therefore…. their RELIGIOUS beliefs have been taken from them.

        The concept is truly something a 1 year old would understand.

        • acontraryview

          “their RELIGIOUS beliefs have been taken from them.”

          If their religious beliefs have been taken away from them then are you saying that they no longer believe that it is wrong for two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage?

          How can beliefs be “taken away”?

          • Horatio Socks

            Come on now… very simple. They said no we won’t do the wedding because our view is that we don’t believe in 2 homosexuals being married based on our religious view. Very simple here…. very simple.

          • acontraryview

            How are they being kept from believing that two people of the same gender should not be allowed to enter into marriage?

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “It is very obvious that they shop Christian businesses, knowing that they will be refused”

      But, how could they even know that, anyway? There are some Christians who are just fine with serving gay people, and I bet some who don’t approve of them, but would just take their money anyway.

    • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

      How do you know your country has been taken over by socialists? When the people in power punish those who hold God as the final authority.

      • timetorun

        Amen!

  • BigHobbit

    If you CHOOSE to do business in an industry, you are CHOOSING to follow all the rules, regulations and laws that everyone else who CHOOSES to do business in that industry has to follow.
    If YOUR beliefs prevent YOUR lawful behavior in ONE industry, it is YOUR responsibility to CHOOSE ANOTHER INDUSTRY.

  • BigHobbit

    The owners of a bed and breakfast in Illinois have been ordered to pay $80,000 after they VIOLATED ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAWS.
    Every business owner has the same responsibility to know and to follow all the same rules, regulations and laws that every other business owner follows.
    Nobody gets “special” rights to violate the law. There is no religious “right” to violate consumer protection laws.

  • MomAA

    Scotty, whose the real bigot? You just proved my point. When you can’t bully your opponent to accept your position, call him names to shut down debate. You all have only two responses when confronted with the truth: BIGOTRY and DISCRIMINATION. As far as turning someone away from God because he/she doesn’t accept your brand of truth is ridiculous. If you knew God, you would turn from your sin to Him. You would ask Jesus to save and deliver you. Also, Jesus would never accept so-called “gay” unions because there is nothing gay (original meaning is happy) about two men and two women pretending to be married. As I stated before, you will never ask Muslim to hold a ceremony in their mosque or place of business. When you do then we can talk.

    In the meanwhile, meditate upon this portion of scripture that Jesus said, “And Jesus answered and said unto them, “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God had joined together, let not man put asunder.” – Mark 10: 5-9.

    So you see Scotty, the God of the universe, whom we all will give account of deeds we have done in our bodies, is the author of marriage. Not government or some laws written by man.

    • scotty501

      You don’t get it. You can post the entire bible….it has nothing to do with the law. Christians need to stop breaking the law. They agreed to the business license and then break their word. Make all the excuses you want but pay the fines! LOL

    • scotty501

      he should not be here said the fish in the pot , he should not be here when your mother is not -The Cat in the Hat

  • scotty501

    “Christians” like this do it their ego. “Look at me i am such a good christian” Look at me i am being persecuted in the name of God. Im just like Job” They pick one sin and focus on it. Meanwhile they turn youth away from god with their bigotry but don’t care….too short sighted

  • scotty501

    Bye Bye $80K LOL

  • bluesky

    Woe to those that call evil good and good evil. They did this to make an example of them. Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand

    • scotty501

      agreed, the perps broke the law

  • bluesky

    Liberalism is what’s killing this country

    • scotty501

      The law breakers are killing this country

  • scottrose

    Clearly homosexuals are an extremely vindictive group. The thirst for vengeance seems to fill a void in their lives, supplying an intense emotion where normal people would have love for their family and friends. The vindictiveness is clearly a sign that their condition should still be listed as a mental illness. Mentally healthy and contented people do not attempt to destroy the businesses of good respectable citizens.

    • scotty501

      Black were too…they should have gone to another lunch counter so those christians would dump food on them! And women! How dare them demand equal rights! LOL

    • John N

      Their relations are so short-lived and they have such high rates of domestic abuse? Their condition should be listed as a mental illness?

      Of course you do have the scientific evidence to back up such bold claims. Because, as everyone knows, christians are not allowed to lie to protect their precious religion, and never do rely on homophobic hatesites to refer for arguments, exactly like they never break any law whatsoever.

      So you got something to show us? Or are you going to backpedal?

    • scotty501

      Scottrose, Which group has the 50% divorce rate?

    • SFBruce

      Mentally healthy and contented people who believe they’ve been treated unfairly, and that that unfairness violates state law file a complaint with the appropriate authority, as Mark and Todd Wathen have done. Mentally healthy and contented people don’t just roll over and accept unfair treatment, especially when there are peaceful and orderly ways to remedy that unfairness. The Walders know and openly acknowledge their actions are in defiance of Illinois law, and they must be willing to face the consequences.

      • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

        Demoralization

        DEMORALIZATION, noun The act of subverting or corrupting morals; destruction of moral principles.

        The will of the people through the voting box was overturned in states around the country. The sodomites strong armed sodomite marriage on the public through the backing of the Communist party, and with brainwashing campaigns such as are outlined in “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s,” which is nothing more than effecting social change through Pavlov conditioning, e.g. Americans think of homosexuality as unhealthy, so depict it on television as natural, healthy etc. There is nothing healthy about the deceit that foisted sodomite “law” on the American people. Americans clearly did not want it. The communist party called sodomite marriage a key tenant toward moving to socialism by the early 2020’s. It is subversion.

        • SFBruce

          There’s so much hyperbole and misinformation in you post, I’ll only take time to refute the one I consider the most basic. You claim, “Americans clearly did not want it (acceptance of LGBT people).”

          Check any reputable poll taken in the last 5 years, and see the American people’s opinion regarding the acceptability of homosexuality and same sex marriage. The majority of Americans clearly favor LGBT equality. If you believe homosexual behavior is wrong, then don’t engage in it, but remember, facts actually do matter, and LGBT people, are just that: people, with the same hopes and aspirations in life as you.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Facts do matter and voters in 31 states voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “The will of the people through the voting box was overturned in states around the country.”

          I don’t know what you’re talking about. We’re discussing the Illinois non-discrimination statute. An amendment expanding it to include LGBT people was duly passed by the Illinois legislature in 2006 and signed into law by Gov. Rod Blagojevich. How is that “overturning the will of the people?”

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            You haven’t read the court docs.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Except this story has nothing to do with “sodomite marriage” and everything to do with non-discrimination laws.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            If sodomite marriage would not have been upheld, there would not be a story.

          • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

            Do you want to continue down the road you are going and prove this is an agenda?

    • gizmo23

      They have no morals at all and they are incapable of love. Many of them have been serial killers.

  • scotty5O1

    It’s a sick society that persecutes good people just trying to make an honest living.

    • scotty501

      Nice try copying my name…very christian! Thanks for exposing Christianity with your games and manipulative dishonesty.

    • Jalapeno

      What exactly do you think should happen to people who break the law?

      Just a quick pat on the head and let them do whatever they want anyways?

      • SSGT_Randolph

        Yep, that’s basically what they expect.

  • https://holdingforthhisword.wordpress.com Lizzy

    Corrupt laws should be disobeyed. Promoting perversion as normal is destructive to any society. Any nation that does so is bound for upheaval and declination since passing wicked laws encourages the wicked to break the decent laws.

    • scotty501

      Equality=corrupt LOL You represent christianity accurately!

    • Jalapeno

      I think that laws restricting marriage based on gender are immoral. Can I disobey those?

      Can I disobey a law telling me that I can’t punch someone for offending me?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Assuming by “perversion” you mean homosexuality, how is it destructive to a society?

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    One phone call: $80000. Wow. Just wow.

    That’s a lot of money for receiving a call. There is a big business opportunity here for systematically listing the numbers of all homosexual activists and their friends and family so that those who would prefer not to engage with their activism will not receive their calls. This would be discrimination, but it would not be unfair. It would be perfectly fair to decline a call from someone who may be calling with the sole purpose of causing you harm.

    • scotty501

      Simpler to just follow the law and not judge people. Everyone is a sinner ..no better no worse. Sins are ranked in the bible. Stop picking and choosing your scriptures

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

        Can I have your number please?

        • scotty501

          Absolutely. eye roll

    • Guest

      Problem is that avoiding a responding customer is just as much a sin as rejecting them so a Christian business owner can’t take your suggested route without that word ‘hypocrite’ popping up.

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

        If the caller id says “hypocrite” then the call can go to voice mail.

        • scotty501

          childish response

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Kingdom Ambassador

    No one should be surprised at this since Christian persecution was inherent in the First Amendment:

    “…Although the First Amendment does not allow for establishing one religion over another, by eliminating Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice (achieved by Article 6’s interdiction against Christian test oaths), Amendment 1 authorized equality for all non-Christian and even antichristian religions. When the Constitution failed to recognize Christian monotheism, it allowed Amendment 1 to fill the void by authorizing pagan polytheism.

    “Amendment 1 did exactly what the framers proclaimed it could not do: it prohibited the exercise of monotheistic Christianity (except within the confines of its church buildings) and established polytheism in its place. This explains the government’s double standard regarding Christian and non-Christian religions. For example, court participants entering the United States District Court of Appeals for the Middle District of Alabama must walk by a statue of Themis, the Greek goddess of justice. And yet, on November 18, 2002, this very court ruled that Judge Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments Monument violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Despite many Christians’ protests against this hypocrisy, it was in keeping with the inevitable repercussions of the First Amendment.

    “…Christians hang their religious hat on Amendment 1, as if some great moral principle is carved therein. They have gotten so caught up in the battle over the misuse of the Establishment Clause – the freedom from religion – that they have overlooked the ungodliness intrinsic in the Free Exercise Clause – the freedom of religion…..”

    For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law v.s the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my picture, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 11.

    • scotty501

      Calling this persecution is an insult to people that really suffered persecution. Its crying wolf and weakens it for true victims. It never ceases to amaze me how low people of “faith” will stoop to “win”.
      Just scroll down at the hateful posts from “christians”. Not sure why you want to document your hate for generations to see?
      Feel free to continue to ramble with pointless cut and pastes Christian! Im embarrassed for you

  • peanut butter

    This is why I’m ticked off with Governor Deal about vetoing the Bill that was introduced in the Georgia legislature the other day. This will be happening here, soon, because of his selling out for merchandising agreements.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Government must promote immorality or government cannot grow. Cannot grow more laws, more lawyers, more judges, more social workers and more gulags. Government must promote immorality, or social workers cannot “socialize” man with their humanist indoctrination that saves man from the sin that they promoted. George Washington warned that those who attempted to shake the foundation (morality based on religious principle) of the fabric, were enemies of free government. This is how America is being moved from free government to a socialist system. Government either turns a blind eye to the conditioning of immorality in the culture, or outright promotes it in education. They absolutely know what they are doing. Oh, the souls that have been caught in this Hegelian trap over the last 50-60 years!

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    USA needs religious liberty. Doing anything for gay wedding is like attending Satan worship for Christians. Why don’t secular Americans( rich Western nations and their faithful dogs – Revelation ch. 22) get it? Liberty was won for reading the Holy Bible and living according to it with a clear conscience, not for being hopelessly immoral or being submissive to perv Western Sodomites in the 21st century. No more slavery. The Holy Bible alone grants freedom to mankind. Americans must remember it. May God deal with Sodom.

  • Horatio Socks

    The laws are bigoted laws and unconstitutional towards not just Christian, but ANYONE who holds a viewpoint contrary to homosexual ‘marriage’.

    Reverse bigotry is still bigotry.

    Can’t wait for the homosexuals to do likewise to a Muslim owner!

    • scotty501

      Absolutely. The idea of equality in the US in 2016 is unconstitutional! eye roll Clearly your points are invalid or your crazy side would not keep loosing in courts. You can hold any view point you want …you just can’t discriminate in business. Simple concept. Its not a businesses job to morally judge customers which is christian favorite pass time which is why church attendance is 22% and dropping. Youth wants no part of your crazy hypocritical bigotry

      • Horatio Socks

        Since when does equality stop when it comes to things I DON’T want to do with my business? You are EQUALLY able to discriminate against me if you so choose. There are many options available to me.

        I’ll ask you again…. when are you going to do the same to the Muslims or Jews who don’t do many things like carry anything but Kosher meat products based on their RELIGIOUS views?

        What you are is actually a hypocrite of the highest order.

        • scotty501

          You don’t seem to have even the slightest understanding of law. The rest of your comment is irrelevant babble

          • Horatio Socks

            As I said in another post, I don’t care if you think it’s babble or not. YOU are discriminating against me if you tell me I HAVE to sell my product to someone, or I CAN’T Sell my product to someone.

            Businesses do this ALL the time.

          • scotty501

            you are a fool

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “I’ll ask you again…. when are you going to do the same to the Muslims or Jews who don’t do many things like carry anything but Kosher meat products based on their RELIGIOUS views?”

          That practice is not comparable. The issue in this case is not WHAT is being sold, it’s WHO it’s being sold to. The Bed and Breakfast sells itself as a wedding venue. It cannot choose not to sell the very thing it sells simply because the person who wishes to buy is gay.

          A Jewish deli doesn’t sell non-kosher meat. It doesn’t sell it to anyone. A deli can’t sell kosher and non-kosher meat, but refuse to sell kosher meat to gentiles. That WOULD be unlawful.

          • Horatio Socks

            It’s the same comparison ambulance chaser. Insert other ‘persons’ for ‘whatever reasons’ and you still have the same issue.

            Product sold or not sold based on some sort of perceived slight by another.

            When you try the same stunt on Muslim bakeries, come back and tell me it’s not comparable.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I have no idea what you’re arguing here. This is incoherent and makes no sense.

            The only thing I can tell you is that anti-discrimination laws do not force anyone to add items to their menu, only to sell what’s on their menu to everyone.

      • Horatio Socks

        The position of total outlaw of Marlboro’s would be called ‘crazy’, but that doesn’t make the premise incorrect!

        Good try scotty….. try again.

        Whether someone wins in the courts or not does not mean the position is
        crazy or incorrect. It’s fairly easy to see this in real life.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      You don’t have to like non-discrimination laws, but to say they’re unconstitutional is simply a blatant, demonstrable falsehood. Such laws have been ruled constitutional for over 50 years. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).

      • Horatio Socks

        Actually, it’s not falsehood at all. What the courts said in 1964 may or may not have any bearing on what the Founders stated or their intent was. So, I would recommend that the rights to exercise contained are much more important than what the court said in 1964, 1894, 2004.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          You can recommend that all you want, but that’s not how our legal system works.

        • Peter Leh

          you mean you wish to continue right to own slaves?

          The founders certain did not expunge that notion while stating “all men are created equal…”

          scary Horatio… very very scary. ( and i am conservative)

          • xram

            Stop with the red herring about slavery already. Slavery was constitutional until it was made unconstitutional the proper way; by means of an amendment. An opinion by SCOTUS is not an amendment and may not be constitutional as is seen by the fact that such opinions are sometimes reversed.

          • Peter Leh

            slavery was made “unconstitutional”, my friend, the minute Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal…” before any constitution was penned.

          • xram

            I wish it had been so, but the contradiction was written into the Constitution itself.

          • Horatio Socks

            That’s typically a stupid statement from someone trying to bridge two subjects that are not connected. Slavery and homosexuals. Dumb move as you should try to connect apples to apples.

          • Peter Leh

            like those who choose their religion and those who “choose” their sexuality?

            BOTH are equally protected. Are you suggesting to remove “choice” for equal protection?

            hmm?

  • TheBottomline4This

    If it were only about the event, they would just go elsewhere, but it’s not only about the event.