Oregon Official Who Took Down Christian Bakery for Declining Same-Sex ‘Wedding’ Loses Election

Sweet-CakesPORTLAND, Ore. — The Oregon official who ordered a couple to pay heavy emotional damages to two lesbians for declining to create a cake for a same-sex “wedding,” resulting in the eventual shutdown of their bakery, lost his election bid last Tuesday.

Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) Commissioner Brad Avakian sought to serve as Oregon’s Secretary of State, but was edged out by Republican challenger Dennis Richardson 47 to 43 percent—and in a state that is traditionally blue.

“His losing was a good sign that people don’t agree with somebody who is anti-constitutional to the nth degree,” Aaron Klein of the now former Sweet Cakes by Melissa told reporters. “He never recognized our religious constitutional rights in his office. He just ignored them.”

“He used his office to execute a personal bias and I think people thought he’d do the same with secretary of state,” he opined. “Most people don’t know his son is gay and he’s got a dog in the fight. For him, it’s personal.”

As previously reported, Avakian had fined Klein and his wife Melissa $135,000 in declaring that they had discriminated against two lesbian women for declining to help out with the 2014 event.

The Kleins had served the women, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, in other ways, and the women returned because the couple had treated them kindly.

“I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” Aaron Klein told reporters. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But because the Kleins said that they didn’t feel comfortable with fulfilling that particular order because of the event that it involved, the women filed a discrimination complaint against the bakers.

“We were being asked to participate in something that we could not participate in,” Klein’s wife, Melissa, stated, outlining that the wedding cake is one of the most personal and intricate parts of the occasion.

Some Christians believe that being a part of a same-sex event violates the biblical command in 1 Timothy 5:22 not to be “partakers in other men’s sins,” as well as the command in Ephesians 5:7, “Be not ye therefore partakers with them.”

After the Kleins were declared guilty of discrimination, Cryer and Bowman submitted individual lists of just under 100 aspects of suffering in order to receive damages. They included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “distrust of men,” “distrust of former friends,” “excessive sleep,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “loss of pride,” “mental rape,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

But the Kleins told the court that they too had suffered because of the attacks that they received over their desire to live out their Christian faith in the workplace. They stated that they endured “mafia tactics” as their car was vandalized and broken into on two occasions, their vendors were harassed by homosexual advocates resulting in some businesses breaking ties with them, and they received threatening emails wishing rape, death and Hell upon the family.

As a result, the Kleins had to close their business and move it into their private home.

In April 2015, Alan McCullough, an administrative judge with the bureau, recommended a payment of $135,000, with one of the women receiving $75,000 and the other $60,000. Prosecutors had sought damages of $75,000 each.

Two months later, Avakian officially accepted McCollough’s recommendation and ordered the Kleins to pay the women $135,000 in light of the damages Cryer and Bowman listed.

The Kleins then asked for a stay of the order, but were denied. As the couple initially refused to pay the damages, believing that they had done no wrong, officials moved to docket the judgment and seek permission to place a property lien against the Kleins or collect the money in other ways.

In December, the state emptied all of the Klein’s personal banking accounts—including money set aside to pay their tithe. The Kleins told reporters following the incident that they had three personal bank accounts: one checking, one savings, and one account marked “God’s money” for their tithe at church. The three accounts contained just under $7,000 total.

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

The funds are currently in an escrow account pending the final outcome of the case, which is on appeal.

This case “is about the state forcing business owners to publicly facilitate ceremonies, rituals, and other expressive events with which they have fundamental and often, as in this case, religious disagreements,” the appeal brief reads. “In this case, BOLI misinterpreted [the law], mistakenly concluding that declining to facilitate same-sex weddings is legally the same as refusing to sell goods or services to gay people.”

The Kleins have since shut down their business altogether.


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
  • johndoe

    Your religious views don’t give you the right to discriminate.

    • eruaran

      You don’t have the right to force others to agree with your views or take part in the celebration of your lifestyle with which they strongly disagree under threat to their business and livelihoods. That is not tolerance, that is tyranny.

      • james blue

        I’m going to agree with this, but point out that the same big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws that force Christians to bake gay wedding cakes also force non Christian bakers to bake cakes for Christian weddings.

        I’m all for revoking laws that force accommodation in the private sector.

        • Amos Moses

          “that force Christians to bake gay wedding cakes also force non Christian bakers to bake cakes for Christian weddings.”

          No …. it does not force anyone to do that ……. if i sell hammers to people but a person wants to buy a hammer for a known nefarious purpose that i do not agree with ….. i do not have to sell it to him …. say he wants to hammer a homosexual with it …. NOPE …….. SORRY ….

          • Croquet_Player

            In that instance, if a customer told you they were going to go beat someone with the hammer, you would have every right to refuse them, and call the police. In fact I think you would have an legal obligation to do so, as the person has clearly told you of their intent to commit a felony. I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone’s been beaten up with a cake.

          • Amos Moses

            i have a moral obligation in both cases ….. cake is not an assault weapon …… but an attack on marriage and the desire to cause harm to another in a homosexual ceremony by entering into a conjugal relationship that causes real physical harm to both ….. again …. sorry ….. you will have to do it without my help or cooperation ……….

          • Croquet_Player

            According to you. I’m referring to your legal obligation. And no one is asking for your help or cooperation in anything.

          • Amos Moses

            if they make me a party to their plans for its use …….. YES ….. they have …. if i sell guns and the person buying it makes it known they intend to use it in a robbery ….. again …….. no sale ……… i have absolutely NO LEGAL obligation to participate ………….. and you know what …….. IT IS DISCRIMINATION ……

          • Croquet_Player

            There’s no need to use all caps. Again, no one is forcing you to go into business against your wishes.

          • Amos Moses

            and no one will force me to do business with those i choose not to do business …………. easy peasy lemon squeezy ……….

          • Croquet_Player

            Sure. And you can get put right out of business, and that will save you the trouble of doing business with anyone. My, my, sweet potato pie.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yep, just like the Nazis did to the Jews. You’re a real piece of work.

          • Croquet_Player

            I understand that’s how you think it works. Take it up with your lawyer when you run into trouble.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not need a lawyer …….. and the world can do to me what it wants …… i do not care ….. see …. you seem to think christians are afraid of what frightens you …… like jail or persecution ….. we do not …. we welcome it ….. we will point out the hypocrisy under which the circumstances of it taking place ….. and the hypocrisy of those doing it …… but it is part and parcel of being a christian …… SO WHAT ….. we knew this going in …….

          • Croquet_Player

            Well, bully for you. Knock yourself out. I hope you stay out of trouble, but you do your thing.

          • james blue

            That’s the “comparison” you want to go with???

            So if a baker is not a Christian and disagrees with Christian weddings, he can legally refuse to bake a cake for that wedding under present law?

          • Amos Moses

            ummmm …….. i do not care what the law says ….. i do not give up my right to not sell items to people who intend to use them for nefarious purposes and make me part of their plans by informing me of their plans ……….

          • james blue

            But are you okay with a non Christian refusing goods and services to Christians? Would you be okay with the law that currently prevents it being revoked?

          • Amos Moses

            goes both ways ……. if a homosexual does not want my money for his or her own reason ……….. i will find someone who will …….. it happens every day …. people choose to do or not do business with whomever for whatever reason they choose ……….

          • james blue

            Finally something we agree on then. you could have saved a lot of time and answered that earlier.

          • Tangent002

            Unless I’m about to do something specifically illegal with your product and am dim enough to tell you, you cannot control how I use what you are selling.

            I can go out right now and buy a wedding cake just to eat by myself, or throw off my roof. It’s none of your business.

          • Amos Moses

            if you are about to do something specifically immoral ….. i will not sell to you ……. and if you make the purpose known ….. then you have brought me into your nefarious deeds ….. NO SALE ……… and it IS MY BUSINESS because you made me a part of your plans ………

          • Tangent002

            Folks like you said the same thing about interracial marriage.

          • Amos Moses

            Nope ……. folks like me did not ……….. and again conflating race with depravity makes YOU the racist ……….

          • Tangent002

            Back in the day, miscegenation was considered ‘depravity’.

          • Amos Moses

            back in the bible …. it was not … and it is still a racist conflation …….

          • Mr Cleats

            I have a better suggestion for what you can do with it.

      • Michael C

        Selling a product that you regularly offer to the general public is not a form of compelled speech. If I sell hats that say “I’m Great!” to the general public, I cannot refuse to sell an “I’m Great!” hat to someone who I don’t think is great if it would be in violation of local and federal non-discrimination laws.

        A baker doesn’t need to agree with a customer’s views in order to sell them a product. The customer doesn’t have to care whether or not the baker agrees with their views in order to purchase a product from them.

        Nobody’s forcing anyone to agree with anything.

        • Reason2012

          They do not offer anti-Christian cakes to anyone in the public – you’re being dishonest. Please prove they offer same-gender celebration cakes to ANYONE else.

          • johndoe

            No such thing as an anti christian cake

          • Michael C

            If a bakery sells tiered cakes covered in white fondant to the general public, they cannot refuse to sell a tiered cake covered in white fondant on the basis of a customer’s religion, sex, race, national origin,… and in some areas, sexual orientation.

          • Reason2012

            100% of customers that ask for such an anti-Christian cake would be denied the request. So your attempt to pretend they’re denying such a cake to only certain customers is false.

          • Michael C

            What about a tiered cake covered in white fondant is “anti-Christian”?

          • Reason2012

            They didn’t ask for a tiered cake covered in white fondant – they requested a tiered same-gender wedding cake covered in white fondant.
            Which part of 100% of their customers, homosexual or not, being denied this request do you hate?

        • eruaran

          Actually, they are. Nice try at obfuscating that fact.

        • eruaran

          So, when someone cannot conscientiously object to something they consider to be immoral without facing punitive action via the state, that is not coercive in any way?

          • Michael C

            If the Kleins do not feel comfortable offering a particular product to the general public without discrimination, they will experience no coercion from the government to do so. If there’s a product or service that they would be unwilling to provide without discrimination, they simply don’t make that offer public.

            There are plenty of legal ways that people like the Kleins and Barronelle Stutzman could have operated their business while remaining true to their personal convictions. They chose not to operate in these ways. They instead chose to break the law by refusing service on the basis of the customers’ sexual orientation.

      • johndoe

        Nobody asked or wanted their participation. They only wanted a wedding cake. Nice histrionics!

        • eruaran

          A mere wedding cake is not what they asked for, you know that.

          • johndoe

            That was all they were asked to provide. Show me where I’m wrong.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Isn’t a mere wedding cake what everyone asks for?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Obviously not, Dina.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Oh, you think they’re asking for Wedding Cake a la Gay or something?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Uh, no. It’s the intent. Do you think that if a pedophile asked for a wedding cake you’d give it?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Intent doesn’t matter. It’s a cake. People are going to eat it. That is what you do with cake.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s not about a cake. It’s about the definition of marriage.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Irrelevant to the product being sold, which gets sold to everyone else and always has.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not what kosher deli owners say. Or Muslim bakers. Why not target them?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            These are cakes and flowers. They are always cakes and flowers. There’s no such thing as a gay cake. You don’t get to complain about the purpose they are used for because it should not matter.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I never used the term “gay cake”. I talked about same sex union cakes. Your argument is as fruitless as claiming there are no such things as wedding cakes, birthday cakes, etc etc when we know there are, so why argue?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            There is no such thing as a same sex union cake either. It’s a cake. Period. There are ten million things you can use a cake for but the cake doesn’t change.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’ve just contradicted yourself – again.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I have not. I have maintained the same thing all along. And the law agrees with me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You have no self awareness.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Tell the Supreme Court that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Supreme Court doesn’t care about personality disorders. 🙂

          • Jenny Ondioline

            This isn’t a personality disorder.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh the irony! 🙂

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Where?

        • eruaran

          So in your world nobody has the right to conscientiously object?

          • johndoe

            Thats different from breaking public accommodation laws.

      • Croquet_Player

        If I sell someone a lawnmower, am I “participating” in their home gardening? No. And by the way I strongly disapprove of the way some extremist Christians lead their lives, but would I ever turn them away from my business? Certainly not. I wouldn’t dream of it. Because they have the right to shop at my public business. And selling them a widget does not mean I agree with them.

        • eruaran

          You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between denial of service and refusal to be pressured into giving your approval to something you strongly disagree with. That is unfortunate because understanding that difference is essential to understanding liberty.

          • Croquet_Player

            And you seem to have difficulty understanding that if the Kleins felt that baking wedding cakes for certain people is immoral, and that the law says they must provide service to everyone equally, then they should have simply stopped selling wedding cakes. No one has a right to operate a business, any business, illegally. They could have easily remained within the law by stopping wedding cake service altogether, and they chose not to.

        • eruaran

          Do you have an example to offer of what you disapprove of?

          • Croquet_Player

            Sure. There are a number of sects which believe in “faith healing” alone. They do not visit doctors, they do not get vaccines, and if a child becomes seriously ill or injured, they do not take them to a doctor or the nearest emergency room. Usually these children die miserable deaths of entirely preventable or treatable conditions. Interestingly, because of “religious freedom” laws, many states allow parents to do this and get away with it entirely, or just face a minimal sentence. I also disapprove of religious families which abuse their children who are gay or transgender. Gay and transgender teens are more likely than straight teens to be homeless, because they have been thrown out of “loving” homes. Or families ship them off to prison-like religious “boot camps” in an effort to change their orientation, where children are essentially tortured. There is no evidence that “aversion therapy” or indeed any kind of “therapy” can alter a person’s sexual orientation, but there is evidence that they can do considerable and lasting psychological harm.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Your sexual orientation doesn’t give you the right to discriminate.

      • Croquet_Player

        That’s right, and neither does your religious orientation.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          No kidding. But you don’t get the right to tell someone what his/her faith and/or conscience dictates.

          • Croquet_Player

            Of course not. People may believe whatever they like, and I strongly support that right. But the people have empowered the state to enforce some regulations in how businesses operate.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So the state has the right to force kosher delis to serve ham sandwiches? And why is it that only Christian businesses are being targeted? How about all the Muslim businesses?

          • Croquet_Player

            This hopelessly flawed example never fails to come up. No. Business owners may stock what they like. No one is required to carry anything. The Kleins could simply have stopped making wedding cakes altogether, (keep making birthday cakes, all the other bakery goods etc.) and remained within the law. The correct example would be can the state force people who have religious convictions about pork to go into the sausage manufacturing business? Of course not. And no one forced the Kleins into the wedding cake business. When a Muslim bakery refuses some customers, they’ll get in trouble too. Since Muslims comprise approx. 0.9% of the US population in total, and Christians approx. 70%, it follows that there are a lot more Christian bakers (most of who are happy to provide great service to all their customers.)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Look, you’re calling a wedding cake the issue. Then a sandwich is just a sandwich, right? Why shouldn’t kosher delis have to offer ham sandwiches? The point is that sometimes a cake isn’t just a cake and a sandwich isn’t just a sandwich. The point is that some things are unclean to Christians, and some things are unclean to observant Jews. The Christian owners have no problem selling regular cakes to homosexual customers, or cookies, or any other products. They have. They do have a problem selling a gay “wedding” cake to anyone, straight or homosexual, because that is unclean to them. It’s also unclean to observant Jews and Muslims, but so far, only Christians have been targeted. Why is that?

          • Croquet_Player

            Wow. I really can’t explain this to you any better than this. No one is forcing the Christian bakers to carry wedding cakes, just like no one is forcing Jewish delis to carry ham sandwiches. There is no law requiring bakers or deli sandwich makers to carry a particular product. The sandwich makers are not violating the law by not carrying a particular type of sandwich, nor are bakers required to carry a particular kind of cake. If a Jewish deli owner said “I’m sorry, we don’t make Reuben sandwiches for homosexuals”, then they’d be in trouble too. Do you understand?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Christian bakers don’t refuse service to homosexuals or straight patrons by service. For example, they would not sell a cake for a homosexual “wedding” to either straight or homosexual patrons. They would sell a cake for a straight wedding to either a homosexual or straight patron. That’s why calling this discrimination is faulty logic.

          • Croquet_Player

            That’s some tortuous logic right there, and would never hold up in front of a judge. Frankly, it’s silly.

          • Amos Moses

            no …. she is pointing out YOUR tortuous logic …………. and circular reasoning ………

          • Croquet_Player

            Do you have a lawyer friend? Just for fun, run that little argument past them and see what they say. This is just like an old business that only served whites. Blacks servants could come in and buy items for their employers with their employer’s money, but they couldn’t buy things for themselves with their own money. Fortunately, (very fortunately) that appalling state of affairs isn’t legal anymore.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Your analogy is false. Then again, you probably got it from wiki. 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Just because you can’t grasp it doesn’t make it silly. It just means it’s over your head.

          • Croquet_Player

            Don’t take my word for it, ask a lawyer. These arguments never work.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            🙂

          • Jenny Ondioline

            There is a lawyer around here someplace – Ambulance Chaser is the name he uses.

          • Michael C

            The government cannot force a deli to have ham sandwiches on their menu.

            If a deli chooses to put ham sandwiches on their menu, they cannot refuse to sell those sandwiches on the basis of a customer’s race, sex, religion, national origin, etc.

            The government cannot force a bakery to have wedding cakes on their menu.

            If a bakery chooses to put wedding cakes on their menu, they cannot refuse to sell those cakes on the basis of a customer’s race, sex, religion, national origin, and in some areas, sexual orientation.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, except you’re (intentionally) missing the point. The point is what is rendered UNCLEAN to both the kosher deli owner and the Christian baker.

            The Christian bakers offer wedding cakes to anyone clients – both straight and homosexual – but they only offer wedding cakes by their definition of marriage. Otherwise, it becomes unclean to them, just like kosher deli owners offer sandwiches based upon what is clean to them. To you, it might just be a ham sandwich, but to a kosher deli owner, it’s an abomination.

          • Michael C

            … they only offer wedding cakes by their definition of marriage.

            Please answer the following question.

            Do you believe that a bakery would be permitted to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interfaith couple if the bakery owner’s personal definition of marriage did not include interfaith relationships? …even though discrimination on the basis of a customer’s religion is prohibited by law?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            See, you’re clearly missing the entire point. Christian bakers do NOT refuse to sell cakes to divorced people, or interfaith couples, or couples of different religions because those cakes are still wedding cakes. They sell wedding cakes. They don’t sell homosexual “wedding” cakes because, to the Christian, there is no such product, just like you wouldn’t catch a kosher deli owner selling ham sandwiches because ham isn’t a viable food option.

          • Michael C

            You didn’t answer my question.

            How ’bout this one? Maybe you’ll answer this one…

            Do you believe that a bakery would be permitted to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple if the bakery owner’s personal definition of marriage did not include interracial relationships? …even though discrimination on the basis of a customer’s race is prohibited by law?

            -edit- …and I never said that the hypothetical bakery owner was Christian.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already answered your question. The answer is no because a.) God is the One who created and defines marriage, and b.) interfaith marriage is never a sin.

          • Michael C

            You have not answered either of my questions.

            a) Not all Christians share the same beliefs about interfaith and interracial relationships and b) Christianity is not the only religion in my country (the United States of America).

            Let me word the same question a slightly different way…

            Do you believe that a bakery would be permitted to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interfaith couple if the bakery owner’s personal (unChristian) definition of marriage did not include interfaith relationships? …even though discrimination on the basis of a customer’s religion is prohibited by law?

            It’s a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. It requires nothing more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. If you feel that you need to attempt to talk your way around the answer, it only proves the point I’m making.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I answered your question both times, but since you didn’t like my answer, you’re playing obtuse. 🙂 You said a simple yes or no would suffice. Scroll up and let me know if you can spot which one I used. 🙂 Have a good night, Mike.

          • Michael C

            Here’s how I understood your response;

            “No, people with the correct Christian religious beliefs are free to disobey non-discrimination laws but people with incorrect religious beliefs are not.” [paraphrased]

            Is this how you intended you response to be understood?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why are you adding words to my response?

          • Michael C

            You said that a bakery should be permitted to refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of the bakery owner’s “correct” religious belief that marriage excludes gay couples.

            …you then said that a bakery should not be permitted to refuse service to an interfaith couple on the basis of their religious beliefs on interfaith relationships because those religious beliefs are “wrong”.

            Is this an accurate paraphrase of your argument?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No, I never said that. You added to my words once more.

            I said that a business has the right to decide which products it offers, and just as a kosher deli has the right to determine what kind of sandwich it makes, a Christian bakery has the right to determine what kind of cake it makes.

          • Michael C

            No, I never said that. You added to my words once more.

            It was a paraphrase. I am not trying to mischaracterize your argument, I’m trying to understand it.

            Why do you feel that one baker should be able to discriminate on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs but another baker should not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs?

            What’s the difference between the baker who wants to refuse service to a gay couple and a baker who wants to refuse service to an interfaith couple?

            I said that a business has the right to decide which products it offers, and just as a kosher deli has the right to determine what kind of sandwich it makes, a Christian bakery has the right to determine what kind of cake it makes.

            This is correct. A deli is free to refuse to make whatever kinds of sandwiches they please as long as that refusal is applied equally to all without discrimination (they can choose not to make ham sandwiches for anyone).

            Similarly, a bakery is free to refuse to make whatever kinds of cakes they please as long as that refusal is applied equally to all without discrimination (they can choose not to make wedding cakes for anyone).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How hard is it to understand the word “no”?

          • Michael C

            What’s the difference between the baker who wants to refuse service to a gay couple and a baker who wants to refuse service to an interfaith couple?

          • Amos Moses

            Again trying to conflate race with depravity ….. michael …. your racist analogy makes you a racist …….

          • Tangent002

            Nope. If an item is not on the menu, there is no way to compel a business to provide that item. There is no material difference between a cake purchased for use after a straight wedding vs. one for a gay wedding.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Homosexual wedding cakes aren’t on the menu. Your point?

          • Tangent002

            Provide a material difference in either the ingredients or manner of preparation between a ‘gay’ cake and any other.

            If a gay person buys a ham sandwich, that doesn’t make it a ‘gay’ ham sandwich.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If a kosher Jew is offered a ham sandwich, it is not a sandwich. It’s an abomination. Same with Christians and same sex unions.

      • johndoe

        You’re not being discriminated against.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          And the sky isn’t blue! Grass isn’t green! Don’t look at the man behind the screen! 🙂

          • johndoe

            LOL!

    • Amos Moses

      my being a human being does ………..

      • johndoe

        Nope

        • Amos Moses

          YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!

          • johndoe

            You’re funny

      • Tangent002

        A business is not a human being. Businesses do not have a right to freedom of association.

        • Amos Moses

          business does not take place OUTSIDE of human beings ……… unless you got some really strange monkeys or something …………

          • Tangent002

            A business is a separate legal entity.

          • Amos Moses

            not always …….. so NOPE ……….

  • Dave R Eflects

    Good riddance.

    There is no justice at all in the episodes. Someone gets her feelings hurt, so the business gets shut down. Sorry, but there is no way you can make the case that someone’s livelihood should be destroyed because someone got upset. That is the grossest injustice imaginable. That’s like giving someone 5 years in prison for littering. It’s kind of a basic principle that a punishment ought to be in proportion to the crime. This isn’t about justice, this is about hating Christians enough to destroy their jobs.

    • Michael C

      Since the mid-sixties, our country has taken discrimination pretty seriously. The fact that you describe the illegal refusal of service in the terms of “feelings being hurt” is shocking and quite offensive to me. Would you be so glib about folks being refused service at a Woolworth’s lunch counter?

      Christians who have experienced discrimination have been awarded damages even greater than was awarded to this couple. Brad Avakian was also the Labor Commissioner when a Scientologist business owner was ordered to pay almost $350,000 to a Christian employee that he had discriminated against.

      The fair and just application of non-discrimination laws is not “anti-Christian”, it’s anti-discrimination.

      The Kleins were not forced to shut down. In fact, over half a million dollars was raised for them through various fund-raising efforts. That more than covered the damages they were responsible for. The fact that their business failed has nothing to do with the damages they were required to pay the couple that they discriminated against. They actually profited (by the tune of over $350,000) off of their choice to refuse service to a gay couple.

      • Dave R Eflects

        Oh, dear. You found my comment “quite offensive.”

        Do you wish to:
        1. sue me?
        2. take away my constitutional right to free speech?
        3. or both?

        Lucky me, you don’t know my name and address, otherwise you’d be slapping me with a lawsuit, wouldn’t you?

        No pleasure like slapping an Evil Christian with a subpoena and draining his bank account, right, Mr. Sunshine?

        • Michael C

          I respect your freedom of speech. I don’t understand this reply at all.

          • Dave R Eflects

            You said you were “offended.”

            How do you plan to get even with me?

          • Michael C

            I don’t need to “get even” with you. What an odd mindset you hold.

          • Dave R Eflects

            You are the ones that think it’s fair to shut down a Christian for hurting a homosexual’s feelings. Obviously you think getting even is a sacred right.

            I’m not the one with the “odd mindset.” I believe in justice. Destroying someone’s business over an episode of hurt feelings is not justice.

            You talk about “equality,” but you really don’t want that. You want your hurt feelings to cost more than other people’s hurt feelings. Your goal it to reduce Christians to second-class citizenship, where we can lose our jobs or businesses for saying something you find offensive.

          • Michael C

            Your issue seems to be with non-discrimination laws, in general. That’s totally fine. You’re not the only person to object to laws like the Civil Rights Act.

            …and again, Sweet Cakes was not “destroyed” by the judgement relating to their choice to refuse service to a gay customer. They actually made over $350,000 just for discriminating against this customer.

          • rick tanner

            This has nothing to do with civil rights. That is a “straw man” argument. “Man stealing” is already condemned in the Bible. Therefore stealing black men from Africa to sell in other countries was a capital offense in the Bible. The same Bible which thousands of years ago condemned “man stealing” condemned homosexuality. The Bible gives civil rights to the black man today as it did thousands of years ago. But the Bible condemns homosexuality now as it has always done.

          • Michael C

            While the term “civil rights” may have several connotations, I’m referring to civil rights laws in the United States.

            I don’t understand the relevance of your comment.

          • Peter Leh

            yes

            very odd indeed to tell someone what they are thinking when there thoughts are clearly posted?

      • Alonzo Bock

        You are an idiot.

        • johndoe

          Not very good at debate are you?

      • Reason2012

        False. it’s not discrimination to refuse to bake this anti-Christian cake because the request would be denied to 100% of people who asked for it.

        • johndoe

          Its not an anti christian cake…how ridiculous and desperate

          • Reason2012

            Any cake about an “anti-Christian ACT” IS an anti-Christian cake.
            Just like any cake about an “anti-black ACT” is an anti-black cake.

          • johndoe

            SSM is not anti christian. You’re being ridiculous and desperate.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Your Christian sect might oppose SSM. That doesn’t mean they ALL do. You should not speak on behalf of all Christians when so many disagree with you.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Never said I was speaking for all professing Christians as there are always a large number of false Christians who pretend God is now ok with some sins. Even Christ points out that many will call Him Lord and will still end up being cast into_hell. What chance have “Christians” got that are teaching others God is ok with some sins? Sins are not suddenly ok with God just because “many disagree” with what God has made plain and instead start teaching the lie that God is just now fine with some sinful behaviors.

            Matthew 7:19-27 “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
            Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
            Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
            And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”

            Live forever, Jenny!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yes, that’s Christian snobbery 101, sometimes called the No True Scotsman fallacy. If they don’t believe what you do, they are “false Christians”. And yet millions of Christians disagree with you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not true, Dina. You do know that the no true Scotsman fallacy doesn’t apply if you change the definition, right? You don’t get to change what Christ Himself defined Christianity as.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            My name is not Dina, nice reach though. And yes, when you don’t like something another Christian does and decide that makes them unchristian, you’re EXTREMELY guilty of No True Scotsman.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s completely false. Jesus Christ defined Christianity in His Word. He gets the final say. You don’t.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            And you don’t get to tell people that your brand of Christianity is truer or better than theirs. If you do, you are guilty of No True Scotsman.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What are you rambling on about? We were talking about Jesus Christ’s definition of Christianity, not anyone else’s. Try to stay on topic.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            And every single Christian denomination believes they follow Jesus Christ’s definition. See the problem?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What does that have to do with me or the topic at hand??

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Simple, you’re making the claim that you’re the CORRECT Christians because of your hatred of homosexuals and ones who accept them (as Jesus would do) are INCORRECT.

            Well over half the Christian population baptizes infants. I’m willing to bet you don’t. That does make the Christians who do it wrong or un-Christian, same example.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I never said a word about “correct” Christians. Why are you coming here trying to engage Christians in arguments with you?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            The subject is false Christians as mentioned by Reason2012 above. Neither you nor he gets to define someone as a false Christian merely because they do something you don’t like. That is No True Scotsman. They are still Christians.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Again, you are falsely accusing us of all sorts of things, and you are putting yourself in the place of who gets to determine who is and isn’t a Christian. You can’t see the hypocrisy.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Spoken like a true Scotsman. I mean, Christian.
            Your Christianity is so open to interpretation that you don’t like it when another Christian tells you you’re wrong. That’s why you’ve got thousands and thousands of denominations – none of you can agree on anything.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So here we have a non-Christian trying to tell Christians who and what they are and what they should believe. 🙂 Kind of like the non-historian trying to tell scholars what really happened. 🙂 Talk about no true Scotsman! 🙂 Pssst – you don’t get to change Jesus Christ’s definition to suit your own, Dina.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Flagged. My name is not Dina. What you are doing is called trolling.

            You don’t have Jesus Christ’s definition. You have your own interpretation of it, which gives you the audacity to tell others they are false Christians. No True Scotsman to a T.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Jesus Christ’s definition is in John 8:31. Christians know this. We know who He is and we know how to follow Him. As a non-Christian, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also, I’ve not called someone a false Christian. You seem confused about what the no true Scotsman fallacy is, particularly since you’re using it constantly. 🙂

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yep, Christians all follow John 8:31. Too bad none of you can agree about anything which is why you call each other “false Christian” all the time. Which is EXACTLY what the No True Scotsman fallacy is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know what John 8:31 means, so how would you know what Christians should or shouldn’t be doing? 🙂

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You don’t even need to read John 8:31 to know that Christians are divided on their core beliefs. Hence all the different denominations.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Would I find this information under the veritable source of wiki? 🙂 You do know that the Bible is very clear in everything it tells us. There is no difference in anyone who is in Christ.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yep, so clear that you have over 40,000 denominations, all calling the other one wrong? Have fun with that, Mr. Scotsman.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re the only one talking about denominations.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            In the real world as we know it, Christianity is divided into denominations.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bible says there is no division between Christians. Christians follow Jesus Christ. That sums it up.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You can ignore those 40 thousand denominations all you like, but they remain. I’ve seen you dismiss Catholics as being non-Christian yourself. That’s No True Scotsman right there.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Again, you are veering off topic because you have no argument. You should stick to topics you know something about. No true Scotsman fallacy isn’t one of them.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You’re welcome to correct where I went wrong on it. Good luck with that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already did but it went over your head. Guess I can’t expect much from a teaching assistant at grade school level.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, actually you haven’t done anything except accuse me of the very thing you are guilty of. And you’ve given no indication you even understand No True Scotsman.

          • Reason2012

            No, it’s called God tells us what a Christian is, not mankind. And if “Christians” vote to claim what God said is a sin in the Bible is now no longer a sin, they are showing they are likely not really Christians.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            God’s telling you and them different things then. You should probably get that cleared up.

        • Peter Leh

          The business should have been set up in such a way to not sell “anti christian” cakes.

          it was not. therefore the citation and fine are on the owners.

      • rick tanner

        I discriminate against bars and liquor stores. I do not buy their product, because the Bible tells me not to. I should not lose my living because of my desires to live my life in accordance to what the Bible says.

        Also, some stores refuse to sell alcohol because they find it a sin according to the Bible. They are denying alcohol to others because of their religious beliefs. They should not be punished in any way.

        Hoping the new federal leaders will change this terrible injustice in Oregon…

        • Michael C

          You don’t seem to understand how non-discrimination laws work. I would recommend taking some time to do some research.

          Since the mid-sixties, our federal government has prohibited businesses who serve the general public from discriminating on the basis of certain characteristics (race, religion, national origin, sex, etc).

          In the state of Oregon, sexual orientation is one of those “protected characteristics.” This means that businesses cannot deny employment, housing, and public accommodations (service at stores, restaurants, etc) on the basis of someone’s sexual orientation. Businesses cannot refuse service to gay people.

          In this case, a bakery owner refused to provide one of her regularly offered services to a customer because he is gay. The customer did not ask for anything that the business didn’t already offer to heterosexual customers. The reason the customer was denied service is because of his sexual orientation. This type of discrimination is actually legal in most of the country. A minority of states and cities (Oregon being one) have elected to protect their gay citizens from discrimination just as they protect Christians from discrimination.

          I discriminate against bars and liquor stores.

          That’s very nice but it has nothing to do with the subject of this article or the civil rights laws that have existed for over half a century.

          Also, some stores refuse to sell alcohol because….

          Again, that’s very nice but it has nothing to do with the subject of this article or the civil rights laws that have existed for over half a century.

          Stores are free to offer whatever products and services they choose. They’re also free to refuse to offer whatever products and services they choose. If there’s a certain product or service that they do willingly choose to offer to the general public, they cannot refuse that product or service on the basis of a customer’s protected characteristic.

          For example, a restaurant can choose not to sell ham sandwiches. If someone requests a ham sandwich, it’s perfectly legal for the restaurant to refuse to make them one. However, if the restaurant willingly chooses to put ham sandwiches on their menu, they cannot refuse to sell a ham sandwich on the basis of the customer’s race or religion or sex or (in Oregon) sexual orientation.

          Hoping the new federal leaders will change this terrible injustice in Oregon

          You’re hoping Donald Trump makes it legal for businesses to fire gay employees from their jobs, deny gay people a place to live, and refuse gay people service at stores and restaurants?!!!

          That’s a truly horrible thing to say and it’s completely out of step with the opinions of the rest of the nation.

          • Reason2012

            You’re hoping Donald Trump makes it legal for businesses to fire gay employees from their jobs, deny gay people a place to live, and refuse gay people service at stores and restaurants?!!!

            He never said any such thing. Those into homosexuality were never denied service at this or any bakery.

            He’s saying the bakers have the right to deny 100% of their customers (not just customers into homosexuality) the request to make anti-Christian cakes, which includes cakes to promote polygamy, a same-gender marriage and more. No matter WHO makes the request, it gets denied, which proves it’s not discrimination. But homosexual activists target bakers like this to destroy their livelihood, which is the true discrimination going on in these cases.

    • violetteal

      There was no crime committed . That was the injustice.

  • Croquet_Player

    The Kleins broke the law in their state. If they don’t want to serve some members of the public, for whatever reason, then they shouldn’t have been operating a business open to the public.

    • calduncan

      Prissy old scold.

      • Croquet_Player

        Insults – the refuge of those with no argument.

    • eruaran

      The liberty you condemn today will be the liberty you cry out for tomorrow.

      • Croquet_Player

        The voters of Oregon passed a law. The Kleins broke that law. No one is telling them they must open a business, but if they do, like any business owners, they are expected to operate within the law.

        • Dave R Eflects

          And like all homosexuals, you feel that a homosexual’s hurt feelings justify shutting down someone’s business, leaving them without a means for making a living?

          Your feelings are very expensive. I’m guessing you don’t value Christians’ feelings that highly. So you really don’t want equality, you wnt Christians to be second-class citizens.

          • Croquet_Player

            What makes you think I’m homosexual? I think business owners should follow the laws which the voters in their state have approved. “Feelings” whether the business owners’ or the clients’ have nothing to do with it. If Christians, or anyone, don’t want to operate their businesses within the law, for any reason, then they are welcome to change their business model, or find alternate employment.

          • Amos Moses

            Sympathizer …… and the law had unintended consequences and should be ignored ……

          • Croquet_Player

            It bears mentioning that there are many millions of Christian business owners who have no problem doing business with clients of any kind. They run an honest business and don’t discriminate. Good for them! They are an example to us all.

          • Amos Moses

            and that is their christian liberty and their christian witness before Christ ….. and they will either answer for it or not ….. and that argument means nothing to the people who do not agree ……….. and selling a car or a hammer to a pagan is not the same as making a cake for a morally reprehensible act of celebration ………

          • Croquet_Player

            Great, so don’t go into the public cake business. Certainly no one is forcing you to.

          • Amos Moses

            and dont expect people to bake things for you when they disagree with the purpose you are choosing to put it to use …….. wanna hammer a homosexual … dont expect me to sell you the hammer ……….

          • Croquet_Player

            Well, I’m not gay, but whatever. If people don’t want to do business with gay people fine. Then don’t go into business in states with anti-discrimination laws.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not care if you are or not ……….. not the point ………. and NOPE …… i do not have to do business with anyone if they are going to use the items i sell for a purpose i do not agree with ….. such as using the hammer i sell to beat the poo out of anyone …. INCLUDING a homosexual …………

          • Croquet_Player

            I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine it would be best if you didn’t open a business in states with non-discrimination laws.

          • Amos Moses

            again …… i do not care about such laws ………….. they violate common sense ……

          • Tangent002

            Hammering a homosexual is illegal, marrying one is not.

          • Amos Moses

            doing both is IMMORAL ………..

          • Tangent002

            Not to me.

          • Amos Moses

            color me surprised …. NOT …. untethered ……….

          • Dave R Eflects

            In short: You do think that homosexuals who get their feelings hurt should be able to destroy someone’s livelihood?

            Yep, that’s the compassionate, tolerant left.

          • Croquet_Player

            It’s not a matter of “hurt feelings”. Business owners in Oregon (and other states) can either abide by all state laws regulating businesses, including anti-discrimination laws or not. If they choose not to, then they’re going to have legal problems. If you don’t like the law, you may present your case to the voters in Oregon.

        • eruaran

          So legality establishes morality now?

          • Croquet_Player

            If the Kleins feel baking wedding cakes for certain members of the public is immoral, fine. They have every right to their views. No one forced them into the wedding cake business. They simply could have stopped making wedding cakes altogether and continued to operate their bakery business within the law. They didn’t do that. No, the Kleins ignored the law, broke it, and then cried “persecution” when they were caught.

          • eruaran

            So, legality establishes morality now?

          • Croquet_Player

            No, the Kleins may hold whatever moral opinions they like. But like all business owners, they are expected to operate within the law.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Those who helped slaves escape also broke the law at one time. So?

      • Croquet_Player

        And gay people broke the law to meet socially. So? You don’t like the law? Get it changed. Good luck with that.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          I have no problem, like Martin Luther King Jr, with breaking an unjust law.

          • Croquet_Player

            Neither did my great-great grandparents, who founded the Eleutherian College in Indiana, (by all means please look it up) the first to admit students without regard to race, creed or gender, and they helped hide and transport escaped slaves. I hate to break it to you, but you’re on the side of the slave owners on this issue. American citizens are entitled to free access to the marketplace.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Since I am a Christian and Christianity overturned slavery, I’d say you’ve mischaracterized what side I’m on.

            These business owners regularly provide service for customers of all orientation. What they don’t do is service homosexual “weddings” to any customer, regardless of that customer’s sexual orientation. It’s like saying a Jewish deli must sell ham sandwiches so that they don’t offend non-kosher customers.

          • johndoe

            What a public business offers to one customer must offered to all customers. Public accommodation laws…read up.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly. And Christian bakers offer straight wedding cakes to either straight or homosexual patrons, and do not offer homosexual “wedding” cakes to either straight or homosexual patrons.

          • Tangent002

            What makes a wedding cake ‘homosexual’?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The intent, and sometimes, what’s written upon it. Just like what would make a pedo “wedding” cake.

          • Tangent002

            There is no material difference between a cake for a straight wedding vs. one for a gay wedding.

            In point of fact, the cake is not for the wedding at all, it is for the reception afterward.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sure there is. One is clean and one is unclean.

          • Tangent002

            ‘Material’ difference. There is no difference is the ingredients or manner of preparation.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No, it’s intent. It’s like something offered to an idol – a Christian wouldn’t touch it.

          • johndoe

            Your opinion only.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If it is a command, it’s not an opinion.

          • johndoe

            Nope. Nothing in your bible commands to not bake a wedding cake. Desperate….

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I never said it did. Are you having trouble following the conversation?

          • johndoe

            Nope.

          • johndoe

            Nope. They’re just wedding cakes. No difference between the two. Thats an zbsurd argument at best😉

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Hey, a ham sandwich is just a sandwich – except to the kosher deli owner.

          • johndoe

            Does the deli owner usually sell those? Nope.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And so, too, do Christian bakers not offer non-wedding wedding cakes.

          • johndoe

            A wedding cake is a wedding cake. Their bigotry and discrimination cost them their business.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, a wedding cake is a wedding cake, but what is a wedding? Is a man “marrying” a child a wedding? How about 2 brothers? Or a mother and son?

          • johndoe

            Now its legally a man and a woman, a man and a man, and a woman and a woman . Here in the USA…

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And slavery was also legal in the US, so….

          • johndoe

            Wow! Funny too! Big leap from having someone in a no consent indentured servitude to two consenting, unrelated adults getting married. How has marriage equality affected your marriage? I’ve been married 17yrs and it hasnt affected mine at all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            We were talking about legalities. Your point was that something being a law made it right. it doesn’t. If 2 adults want to practice incest, is that okay too?

          • johndoe

            Thats not legal where I live. You’re a funny guy!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Neither was homosexual unions at one time.

          • johndoe

            There’s absolutely no reason other than a religious one for them not to be able to marry.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The same could be said for pedophilia or incest.

          • johndoe

            Pedophilia is a consent issue and incest can cause kids to have severe birth defects. Both of those issues are illegal in America. Again, how does SSM affect anyone else except the two who are getting married? Hint….it doesnt

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So what about incest if no children are involved? And why can’t children consent? Look, those are the kinds of arguments being made today – similar to those same sex union people made years ago. What’s the difference?

          • johndoe

            Still havent answered my question. How does same sex marriage affect you or anyone’s marriage?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Any sham dishonors and hurts the foundation of society.

          • johndoe

            Still cant answer….got it

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Come on, don’t be that insincere. You got your answer, but you just don’t like it.

          • johndoe

            Funny.

          • johndoe

            How ridiculous. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The law stands and they deserve the fine.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            But what is a wedding?

          • Croquet_Player

            There were staunch Christians on both sides of the slavery issue. I answered this flawed “ham sandwich” analogy below.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s an historical fact that Christians overturned slavery for Christ’s sake. Non-Christians didn’t do it.

          • james blue

            In this country it was the Christians who were the slave owners.

          • Tangent002

            Some Christians did. Not all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I didn’t say all. I said that Christians overturned slavery. Slavery only exists in non-Christian nations today.

          • Croquet_Player

            You actually said “Christianity overturned slavery”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes – I stand by that. That Christianity (or Christians) overturned slavery. Re-read your entire post to see what I was objecting to.

          • Croquet_Player

            It was some Christians. Not “Christianity” as a faith otherwise no Christians would have ever supported slavery, but alas they did.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If someone acts against God’s Word, they’re not really a Christian per Christ’s definition in John 8:31

          • Croquet_Player

            So all the pro-slavery Christians were not “true Christians”. I see. How convenient. This reminds me of the anecdote, “If you want to know what’s wrong with the First Baptist Church, go ask the folks at the Second Baptist Church.” And of course each will point to the other and say “But they’re not true Christians!” Do you know there are hundreds of various denominations within Christianity? That’s a lot of non-“true-Christians” walking around.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            My point is that Christians overturned slavery. Non-Christians thought it was okay.

          • Croquet_Player

            That’s nice, since all the Christian colonial nations really got the slavery ball rolling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s historically untrue.

          • Croquet_Player

            No, for the Christians, they did. Christians were quite good about slavery until then.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Again, untrue. Look at the dates.

          • Croquet_Player

            Well, I suppose we’ll have to determine by your standards whether they’re “true Christians” or not first, and save ourselves a lot of time.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I never quoted my standards. I quoted the words of Christ.

          • Croquet_Player

            O.k. well, you can quote Christ’s standards then. And determine all the true Christians from the non-true Christians. Get back to me when you’ve sorted that all out, specifically as it relates to all the European Christians who participated in the African slave trade for colonial nations.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already did quote Christ’s standards directly from Him. Those are the ones we must go by if we want to discuss Christianity.

          • Croquet_Player

            So, figure out if Christian European slave traders were “true Christians” or not.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re the one who seems troubled by it.

          • Croquet_Player

            You keep making overblown claims about the virtues of Christianity, and Christians, while refusing to account for the entire picture. Yes Christians we anti-slavery, but many were pro-slavery as well, and you don’t get to breezily write them all off as “not true Christians”. Yes, Christianity has had worldwide influence, but much of Christian theological philosophy originated with 5th – 4th C. B.C. Greek philosophy. It’s didn’t just spring fully formed from Christians. Just trying to keep you honest.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m referring to actual history, while you’re referring to personal prejudice.

          • Croquet_Player

            No, you’re not. Please see my comment above.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sure I am. See all my comments. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            There were certainly many Christians who worked to overturn slavery, my great-great grandparents among them. That is an historical fact. It is also an historical fact that many Christians were pro-slavery.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So if overturning slavery wasn’t a Christian thing, why are only non-Christian countries still slave holders?

          • Croquet_Player

            But there are also plenty of non-Christian countries that are not slave holders. Indeed, we have illegal sex-trafficking (basically slavery) here in the U.S., despite this being a 70% Christian population. I am not denying that many Christians were at the very forefront of the anti-slavery movement, and many more throughout, and that’s wonderful. If being a Christian was the sole determining factor in being anti-slavery then you could reasonably claim that Christianity was the sole reason for overturning slavery. But obviously it wasn’t, because of all the pro-slavery Christians.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, no. Slavery has only been obliterated in Christian lands.

          • Croquet_Player

            Been to Japan lately?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes. Why don’t you ask a Chinese person about slavery in Japan? Or a Thai sex slave?

          • Croquet_Player

            But they no longer have it, slavery is illegal in Japan. Any slavery there now is just like we have here in the U.S.- illegal, underground trafficking.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They just play games with the name. Now they call them indentured servants or house laborers.

          • Croquet_Player

            And we have that too. Foreign nannies or other servants imported to work in households or businesses. They take their passports and make them work 16 hours a day, seven days a week. It’s awful. And it’s illegal, here and in Japan.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s punishable here. They don’t punish it in Japan.

          • Croquet_Player

            Yes, they do. And in South Korea, and in Thailand, and in Vietnam.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They usually over look it or punish it lightly. However, your quibbling is missing the point entirely.

          • Croquet_Player

            Quibbling? Or accuracy? You don’t get to claim that “Christianity” is the reason that slavery is illegal, or that all non-Christian nations are actively engaged in legal slavery today.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Christianity has influenced the entire world. That’s historically factual.

          • Croquet_Player

            Sure it has. For good or ill. And so has Greek civilization, which of course influenced Christianity.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Christianity influenced Greek civilization, not the other way around.

          • Croquet_Player

            Classical Greece flourished during the 5th to 4th centuries BC. So you’re around 500 years off.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What does classical Greece have to do with Christianity? You’re going around in circles there dude. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            A lot. You claim Christianity has influenced the whole world and in some ways it has. And Greek thought influenced early Christian theology. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I’m always surprised to find more Christians don’t know this. Please don’t take my word for it, look it up. (Not a dude either, but whatever.)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Greek culture was important, but it’s separate from Christianity. Why do you think it influenced Christianity?

          • Croquet_Player

            It is not “separate from Christianity”, it was a strong influence. As I said, please look it up. If you want to make sweeping claims about worldwide Christian influence, you should know what you’re talking about, and clearly you are unaware of the influence of Greek thinkers on early Christian theology. You may start at Wikipedia here: “Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You should be able to prove your claims and from a viable source. Hint: Wiki isn’t viable. Anyone can write anything there, including you. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Oh. I see. So first you claim “Christianity influenced Greek civilization, not the other way around.” which is simply factually wrong. And now that I’m trying to assist you by giving you a quick and easy starting point to look it up, you claim the source is not reliable. O.K., go to your local library or bookstore and ask, or just do an internet search for “Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy”. In the meantime, you should honestly concede to yourself that there are some major factual deficits in your understanding of your own religion, in both its history and founding philosophies, and refrain from making sweeping claims about it that are, at best, (and I’m being nice here), inaccurate and incomplete. Because no honest appraisal of Christianity would take credit for the fight against slavery while failing to also acknowledge the role of Christians and Christian nations in the slave trade. Nor would anyone claim, as you did, that “Greek culture was important, but it’s separate from Christianity”, which is flat-out wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            One need only read the Bible (which is also considered a historic tome) to see that Christianity influence Greek culture. Or ask a Greek Orthodox clergy or congregant to see it’s so. Or read an actual history book instead of wiki.

          • Croquet_Player

            My dear Guest. Your poverty of knowledge regarding the influence of early Greek philosophy on Christian theology is apparent, and while you may not be embarrassed, I’m embarrassed for you. Furthermore, you resist any goodwill effort to help you remedy the deficit. You cannot be helped. Reading an actual history book is a great idea. You should try it sometime, because until you do, there will always be a significant gap in your understanding of the development of your own religion. Best of luck.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You may not know me, but I’m an academic as are almost all of my family members. 🙂 You clearly are not informed about this topic. Perhaps you should stick to croquet. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            An academic who is not only entirely unaware of the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology, but actually denies it ever occurred – repeatedly! Yeah right, pull the other one. “Academic?” I’m sorry, but no. You’re not fooling anyone, and you should stop trying. Deny it all you want. While you might be unwilling to look it up, anyone else can, and will see that you are simply wrong. Lots of luck to you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, you’re showing your ignorance all over again. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            By all means, let’s review again, your infamous howler: “What does classical Greece have to do with Christianity?” The answer is “a lot”, and that fact that you don’t know this, and even deny it, is astounding. Ignorance? Yeah. Lots of it. Not only ignorance, but what’s worse, a willful indifference, and refusal to even bother to do the slightest bit of fact-checking. You don’t know, and you don’t want to know. Some “academic”, you are. It’s quite distasteful seeing this kind of thing on display, frankly. Shameful willful ignorance.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re just making up things. You made an assertion and were not able to back it up.

          • Croquet_Player

            Right. I am “making up” the fact that Greek philosophy influenced Christian theology. Please. Just Google “The Effects of Greek Philosophy on Christian Theology”. Just do it. You will find pages and pages of material. Scholarly papers. Apologetics. University departments which offer entire year-long courses on the subject. Christian seminaries which publish discussions online. I cannot post links on this site or I could offer you hundreds. Please, just go do it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why should I do your homework for you? Especially since I already know the answer and know that you are wrong. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            It is you who needs to do homework, and apparently quite a lot. Does being ignorant and proud of it make you happy? You haven’t looked anything at all up, have you? Thank you for providing a shining example of a “true Christian”. Disputes known facts, refuses to do any research, obstinataly refuses help when offered, the list goes, on and on. Come on, let’s put all your shameful failings on display, right here. I love it when Christians like you display themselves for what they really are. You are a million times better than any atheist billboard. The ideal poster child for willful ignorance. What other preposterous claims would you care to add? By all means, do feel free.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why don’t you just show your proof if you have any?

          • Croquet_Player

            Why haven’t you Goggled “The Effects of Greek Philosophy on Christian Theology”? Hundreds of papers. Right there. This site does not accept links. Go do it, now.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I have an education. I don’t need to rely upon Google. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you, I graciously accept your default concession. Have a lovely evening.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, whatever, wiki person. 🙂 Don’t be afraid of an education. It’s a good thing.

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you, I graciously accept your default concession.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you’re just going to spam the board with that inane response because you can’t prove your original contention? 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Have a lovely evening, and thanks again for your default concession!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So sad. I hope you will try to learn a little history.

          • Croquet_Player

            Google. You can learn a lot. Thank you SO much for your concession! It was most welcome.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You think Google takes place of a history education? 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Your default concession was warmly welcomed.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re still here? I was hoping you’d run out to get an education. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Always so nice to receive a concession, default or otherwise! Yours is gratefully accepted.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So still no proof? 🙂

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Final score:
            Croquet_Player: 50000
            “Guest”: 0

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, Croquet Player just came back under another name. 🙂

          • Jenny Ondioline

            She did. Over and over and over and over and over.

          • Croquet_Player

            Since I cannot offer links to you on this site, which does not accept links, if you refuse to do a Google search for “The Effects of Greek Philosophy on Christian Theology”, where you will find hundred of scholarly papers from universities, seminaries, respected theologians, and academics, comprising hundreds of years of reasoned thought on the topic, then you will have forfeited the point, and I will graciously accept your default concession. Or you could just look it up and prove me wrong. Go for it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are the one who made a contention – one you could not prove. The onus is on you.

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you. Having offered you hundreds of links proving the case via Google, (since this site does not accept links) which you either cannot or will not look at, I graciously accept that you have, by default, conceded the point that Greek philosophy, did, in in fact, have a profound influence on Christian theology. Anyone else may look it up too: do a Google search for “The Effects of Greek Philosophy on Christian Theology”. Thanks Guest! I hope you enjoyed this, I certainly did.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You haven’t offered any thing. 🙂 You do know that simply because something is on Google doesn’t make it true, right? 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you, I graciously accept your default concession. Have a lovely evening.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s so sad. You got called out and now you’re running. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            You default concession is great appreciated!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So not only are you ignorant of history, but you lie a lot, too.

          • Croquet_Player

            Hundreds of scholarly papers. Right there at your fingertips. Oh well, thanks so much for your default concession!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like the ones on the bookshelf in my office? 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            I gratefully accept your default concession.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You know repeating yourself is considered spamming, right?

          • Croquet_Player

            Oh really? And following me around like a desperate puppy isn’t? Your default concession is graciously accepted!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, you’ve been following me all around the board, repeating yourself. It’s sad, really. You made up something and then spazzed out when you couldn’t prove it. Lying is a very serious offense.

          • Croquet_Player

            Thanks so very much indeed for your default concession! Gratefully accepted.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do you gratefully accept an education? 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            So kind of you to offer your default concession! Much appreciated!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There you go again. Must be sad to live in a faux reality world where history and facts don’t matter. You hate Christianity so much, you lie about it.

          • Croquet_Player

            You’re too kind! Thanks so much for your default concession!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s sad you prefer to remain in ignorance. Is that what hate does to you?

          • Croquet_Player

            So very kind. Thanks again for your default concession!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So very kind. Thanks again for your default concession!

          • Croquet_Player

            Gracious to the last Thank you for your default concession!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Gracious to the last Thank you for your default concession!

          • Croquet_Player

            Off to the country with no wifi for the holidays, best wishes to you and yours, and thanks again for conceding so gracefully, I’ll always cherish it. Goodbye!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Off to the country with no wifi for the holidays, best wishes to you and
            yours, and thanks again for conceding so gracefully, I’ll always
            cherish it. Goodbye!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Called out? She handed your butt to you. This was the most entertaining reading I have had in weeks. She backs up her claims repeatedly, and you cover your ears and shut your eyes. She gives you the most basic Google search that will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt with hundreds of facts and citations that she’s right and you refuse to do it. Then you mock her and claim defeat. I can’t breathe from laughing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You might want to try some oxygen for that, Croquet Player/Jenny. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            And by the way, on the reliability of Wikipedia: “In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare
            Wikipedia’s scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia
            Britannica—”the most scholarly of encyclopedias,” according to its own
            Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained
            four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.

            And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
            found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its
            articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a
            professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer
            Institute.

            The self-described “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” has fared
            similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to
            conventional encyclopedias, including studies by the Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.” LiveScience, January 24, 2011.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Naw, wiki sucks. I could go there and edit it to say anything I want.

          • Croquet_Player

            You could go edit it, but erroneous, unsourced material is removed. And that’s exactly what would happen if you posted your flight of fancy regarding the origins of Christian thought. Because you are simply wrong. You are plainly uninformed on the topic. You should fix that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Ha ha! Try using wiki as an academic source. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            I offered it as a quick and easy starting point reference for you. I’m not citing it in a paper. You clearly need to start somewhere.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You got no proof and you don’t have viable sources so you did what those who are unfamiliar with the topic do – you went to wiki. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            I cited Wikipedia as a courtesy TO YOU. It’s a site where you could pop over for two minutes, take a quick look, and begin from there to research the topic. You need to go to your local library, and ask the librarian for the section that contains all the books discussing “the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology”. (Or even online with sources you deem “credible”.) I can’t help you do that, you have do do it for yourself. You claim to be an “academic” so this should be fun for you. Seeking knowledge is fun for an academic. The proof is in your local library, bookstore, or online. Go there, do it, and until you do, give it a rest. I’ve done my best to help you. You wouldn’t accept anything I cited as credible anyway, and why should you? Please, don’t take my word for it, look it up yourself. Seriously, this is your own religion, wouldn’t you like to get your facts straight and learn a little more? An “academic” would. If not, why not? What’s stopping you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You still have no source I see. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Please see my comment above.

      • Bob Johnson

        Yep. My great grand daddy and great grand mother broke the law and they knew very well the risks.

    • Reason2012

      They would not bake the anti-Christian cake no matter WHO asked them to bake it.
      They always have served those into homosexuality with all the same products they offer everyone else.

      • Croquet_Player

        Yes, yes, we’ve all heard these tiresome, ridiculously circuitous arguments before, and they never stand up in court. Please don’t take my word for it, ask a lawyer. But you go right ahead and think that if you like.

        • Reason2012

          Please cite where this precise argument was used in court.

          • Croquet_Player

            I don’t know of any cases, although there very well may be. Because no reputable lawyer would attempt it, because it’s silly. Again, please don’t take my word for it, ask a lawyer.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, yes, we’ve all heard these tiresome, ridiculously circuitous arguments before

            When called on it to cite where this has been heard even ONCE, you reply:

            I don’t know of any cases,

            Thank you for showing everyone else how dishonest LGBT “activists” typically are.

          • Croquet_Player

            As I said, please ask a lawyer. The dearth of examples should tell you something right there. Why didn’t the Klein’s lawyers use this argument in their defense? Or Baronnelle Stuztman’s lawyers in Washington State? If this was such a watertight argument, their lawyers would obviously have used it, and the Kleins and the Ms. Stuztman would have walked away with no fines. Maybe you should advise their lawyers that you have this great argument they should have used. Seriously if you think it works, call them right up. And they can explain to you why they didn’t.

          • Croquet_Player

            When I say “we’ve heard these arguments” I mean we’ve heard them, repeatedly, from people trying to defend discriminating against people. There’s a reason you don’t hear them from lawyers in court.

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            What, exactly, are you looking for? The statute on nondiscrimination? Case law that demonstrates that refusal of public service to a protected class is discrimination? Something need not be cited in court in order to be binding law. If you articulate what you want, I will do what I can to find it.

  • bowie1

    Looks like the electorate there fired the oregon offficial by not electing him.

    • Peter Leh

      Yep… but the law will not change.

  • Michael C

    As Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian also fought for the religious freedoms and protections from discrimination for Christian Oregonians. …but those facts don’t serve the narrative presented in this article.

  • Michael C

    As Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian also fought for the religious freedoms and protections from discrimination for Christian Oregonians.

    • Amos Moses

      Yep ….. until he didnt ………

      • johndoe

        And?

  • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    God will vindicate them.

    • johndoe

      If he exists……

      • Amos Moses

        another personal opinion ……….

        • johndoe

          Absolutely

    • TwoRutRoad

      How will this vindictive god vindicate them, do you suppose?

  • Liberal Elitist

    Looks like the scare quotes were misplaced in the article’s title.

    Oregon Official Who Took Down “Christian” Bakery for Declining Same-Sex Wedding Loses Election.

    There you go. Fixed it.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    No human being should be ordered to serve a sinful activity such as gay wedding against the Word of God and against a clear conscience. The Western nations lose freedom and fairness when they lose Christian virtues. It’s been a pattern. Secularism forces people to commit immorality. Freedom and human rights exist only with Judeo-Christian values and nothing else.

    • johndoe

      They weren’t asked to serve anyone. They were asked to bake a cake.

      • Amos Moses

        and that is a service ……..

        • johndoe

          Nope. No difference between wedding cakes

          • Amos Moses

            YUP … difference as to their use ………

          • johndoe

            Nope…not per our legal system

          • Amos Moses

            Yup …… as per our legal system …….

          • johndoe

            Sure, whatever you say…lol.

          • Amos Moses

            Sure, whatever you say…lol.

        • Peter Leh

          “and that is a service ……..”

          a service the Kliens choose to offer to the public. What does the Oregon law say about service offered to the public?

    • Peter Leh

      one has been ordered. Once again grace.. do you know ANYTHING about Oregon law and running business?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You guys are being bored by having full-stomach for the longest time, and that’s why you are discriminating against the Christians instead of colored people this century. Gay wedding is something like a Satanic ritual to Christians. Participation is a treason against God. Americans are power-oriented bullies like the rest of mankind if they have no Christian virtues. This news is one of the proofs.

        • johndoe

          We are well fed due to our farmers and ranchers work ethic. Nobody is discriminating against christians. Also, gays marrying is a legal right. Nothiing evil or satanic about it

  • Reason2012

    Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to use his business support the anti-black act of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering? Would a black printer who has no problem serving white people have to make printings to support the act of “the beliefs of black people do not matter” request?

    No. The only bigots in such a case are those who sought this black baker or black printer out to support this ACT. And so it goes with homosexual activists who seek out Christian bakers and Christian business owners to force them to support such anti-Christian acts no matter if it’s a homosexual who makes the request or not, more so when such people have no problem serving those who declare they’re into homosexuality.

    America is waking up to the deception from homosexual activists, and cases like this make it more obvious and make people more aware of what the real motive is of same-gender marriage and transgender bathrooms is: the offshoot criminalization of those who do not support these ACTS.

    And keep in mind, these same homosexual activists hate LGBT people. When 50 of them were_killed in Orlando, these same activists jumped to the defense of_islam as the “religion of peace”, while not saying a word to defend those who were_killed, but instead keep going after those “evil” Christians for not violating their Christian faith and perform anti-Christian acts.

    Keep in mind they are anti-Christian activists, not LGBT people in general, but activists that have proven they hate LGBT people and are just using them to push this anti-Christian agenda.

    • johndoe

      Still usimg those blanket statements about Islam? Then you are in the same boat as westboro baptist church per your logic. So be it..

      • Mr Cleats

        Flagged.
        You need to move on, little pest.

        • johndoe

          Flagged back. Quit whining

        • Croquet_Player

          Flagged for what, exactly? You seem to be the one using derogatory name-calling.

      • Reason2012

        Please cite your posts on the day 50 LGBT were slaughtered here in America yet again by someone following islam / shariah law, rebuking the murderous shariah law / islam ideology he was following.
        You can’t because you remain silent when people are following islam / shariah law even here in American to_kill LGBT, which shows you hate LGBT and just use them to promote your anti-Christian hatred.

        • johndoe

          I’m not required to post anything in order to be appalled by something. The murderer was just that. Yes he followed Islam. Are you the same ideology as westboro? There are radicals in every religion. You are an anti Islam…we get it. Not everyone who follows Islam is murderer or terrorist. Get it?

    • Peter Leh

      Hate speech is not protected.

  • cadcoke5

    Selling art that you create is very different from selling commodity items. The creation of art involves an investment of your heart. The bakery had sold cakes to many homosexuals. But, they refused to invest their heart into the creation of an item, whose purpose is to glorify sin. That is where a Christian should draw a line.

    I am in the process of listening to an audio book, “The Hiding Place”, about the Boom family. They sought to honor God, in the face of the Nazi occupation of their country. It did not matter if it meant losing everything… even their lives. The Klein’s have the same spirit.

    • Peter Leh

      “Selling art that you create is very different from selling commodity items”

      Correct. That does have to be settled. If baking a cake is a “creation” then so is a sandwich made from scratch. So is building a house. So is the art of heart surgery.

      You want to go down that road?

    • Tangent002

      Many artists operate as independent contractors and only accept the commissions they want. There are laws to accommodate this. If you have a storefront open to the public, however, whatever you make available in that store must be available to everyone.

      • cadcoke5

        Many bakeries will have a display case, where you can say, “I want to buy that cookie.” = Commodity. The store may, or may not make cookies for Christmas, Ramadan, or to celebrate the birth of Hitler. If you want specially designed Hitler cookies, then you have crossed the line into commissioning the creation of new art work.

        To Address Peter Leh’s comment from below; the presence of a store front does not change things. Many artists have studios, and may display their art work in the window for sale. Those works already were created, and were out-flowing from the heart of the artist, when they were created. To use the Hitler subject again, an artist who’s family was killed in a Nazi concentration camp might actually have created a work of art for sale that includes Hitler. Though, it is probably not complimentary of his character. If, however, a fan of Hitler, says, “I want a nice sculpture of Hitler, showing him as a saint with angel wings, and standing on top of the despicable people he sought to overcome.” The artist has good moral reason to refuse service, though perhaps he would not have had the legal right to refuse that design in Nazi Germany.

        In regards to independent contractors; There are videographers and photographers, who have faced the wrath of the homosexual activists in government. They are even required to attend this event that mocks God’s design. This is in at least 21 states now. So, that status of being a contractor does not seem to protect them. So, my example artist is apparently required to do that Hitler sainthood statue.

        The Hitler statue is a clear example of forced speech, even though there are no words written on the statue. A homosexual wedding cake, is likewise a form of speech created to celebrate something the bakers in the article found to be objectionable.

        • Tangent002

          If you don’t make Hitler statues, no law says anyone can compel you to do so. If you do make Hitler statues, you must make them for everyone who has the means to purchase one.

          Unless the cake is decorated with intertwined phalluses, there is no material difference between a cake made for a gay wedding and one made for a straight wedding.

          The refusal was made based on the identity of the participants, not the content of the product. That constitutes discrimination under Oregon law.

  • michael louwe

    Christians in the vote-pandering n liberal Blue States should expect more religious persecution to come bc this has already been prophesied in the Bible, eg 2TIM.3, REV.13:11-18.
    ……. Just like how the apostles were persecuted n martyred during the 1st Advent of Jesus Christ to earth, similar things will be happening to Christians just b4 the 2nd Advent of JC to earth.
    ……. Also, there will be the Days of Noah 2.0.(MATT.24:36, 1THESS.4:16)

  • Liberal Elitist

    Looks like the scare quotes were misplaced in the article’s title.

    Oregon Official Who Took Down “Christian” Bakery for Declining Same-Sex Wedding Loses Election.

    There you go. Fixed it.

    • AlphaOmega

      Homosexuals do not determine who is Christian.

      Go play with the children.

  • Robert

    this was a activist judge that discriminated against a christians right not to be part of homosexual beliefs. the judges son is a homosexual. now if the baker had refused to bake a cake for the k.k.k. it is very doubtful this judge would have been such a activist for the K.k.k.
    .

    • Tangent002

      The KKK is an organization, not a person. The bakers could legally have turned down an order from GLAAD since businesses and organizations have no ‘protected class’ status like individuals do.

      • Robert

        the K.k.k. is people like David duke just like homosexuality are people like the judges son

        • Tangent002

          True, but political affiliation is not protected, even for individuals.

  • Tangent002

    Know Jesus, no cake.
    No Jesus, know cake.

    I like cake.

  • Reason2012

    Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination …”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

  • violetteal

    This is one of many attacks upon the church. Do not think that things will get any better under a Trump administration.