Minnesota Filmmakers File Preemptive Suit to Protect Right Not to Promote Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — A Minnesota couple who operates a video production company have filed a pre-enforcement challenge over concerns that state law mandates them to create films in support of same-sex “marriage” if they also produce videos that reflect their Christian beliefs about marriage.

Carl and Angel Larsen run the Telescope Media Group, which has produced videos for a number of prominent evangelical ministries. The couple, being concerned about the societal drift from God’s plan for marriage, would like to tell stories with their filmmaking skills to “impact religious, social, and cultural views about marriage by creating compelling stories celebrating God’s design for the institution.”

Their desired films will capture actual footage of weddings and will be used both as keepsakes for the couples and to reach global audiences.

However, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has outlined that businesses, religious or not, can’t decline services related to homosexuality.

“The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage,” it outlines on its website. “Therefore, a business that provides wedding services such as cake decorating, wedding planning or catering services may not deny services to a same-sex couple based on their sexual orientation.”

The department reportedly sends out “testers” in cases where a complaint has been issued, who pose as someone wanting the service.

Because of the law is interpreted, the Larsens are concerned that they will be required to also produce films featuring same-sex ceremonies if they create professional videos on marriage in general.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Among other things, the Larsens will decline any request to design and create media productions that: contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman,” their legal complaint outlines.

“It would violate Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and conflict with their message about marriage to force them to tell the story through film of any marriage that conflicts with their religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman, such as a same-sex marriage,” it states.

The couple does not feel free to move forward with their desired project, which entails choosing which clients they wish to record, since violators can face hefty fines and even jail time.

“Plaintiffs currently suffer the ongoing harm of self-censorship of their desired, protected expressive association, in order to avoid prosecution under Minnesota Statutes Annotated §363A.11(1) and § 363A.17(3),” their lawsuit outlines.

However, the Larsens believe that videos are protected under the First Amendment, and that those whose businesses involve creations that are a form of free speech should not be compelled to produce art or issue speech that violates their conscience.

“Plaintiffs’ production of films telling the stories of marriages between one man and one woman, and their decision to decline to produce films promoting any other conception of marriage, are protected by the First Amendment,” the complaint contends. “The First Amendment prevents the government from compelling people to create, express, support, or promote a message not of their own choosing or to speak when they would rather remain silent.”

They are therefore seeking an injunction against the law and a declaration that the statutes, as applied to their business, are unconstitutional.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? Please click here to send a heater to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Tangent002

    Normally, video production companies operate as independent contractors and can therefore pick-and-choose their projects. This sounds an awful lot like an attempt to get some free press.

    • bowie1

      Aren’t cake bakers and flower stores also independent contractors? It didn’t seem to help them.

      • Tangent002

        No, cake bakers and florists generally have store fronts and are thus businesses of public accommodation. Bakers and florists certainly could operate as independent contractors, but they would severely limit their clientele.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I’m sorry to call out someone who I normally agree with, but none of what you just said is true. Having a storefront is irrelevant to your classification as an independent contractor. The only thing that makes someone and independent contractor is that they don’t have a boss other than each individual one-off client.

          Florists, bakers, and videographers are all independent contractors with the wedding couple.

        • bowie1

          I know a fellow who has done some cake decorating but he has another day job.

          • Willem

            Oh you mean your wifes haidresser?

        • Willem

          Oh jezus puleeze these people bake cakes and arrange flowers who the hell cares what the customer does in bed,get over it and sell your stuff!

    • Michael C

      If they wanted to make their own movies, they’re free to pick the subject matter.

      The problem arises when the business advertises the service of wedding videography to the general public.

      This would be most similar to the New Mexico, Elane Photography case that ADF lost several years back. In that case, Elane Photography refused to photograph a commitment ceremony for a gay couple despite the fact that they provided the same services for straight customers. The New Mexico Court of appeals unanimously found them in violation of state civil rights laws. The decision was appealed by ADF and the New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court’s ruling. That ruling was also appealed by ADF and it went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS denied the appeal, allowing the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling to stand.

  • Emmanuel

    Can someone correct me please, the left does not want to separate church and state? They want the state to dictate what the church, christian filmmaker, bakers and the such to say or do? So state is forcing the church or else?
    Am I looking at this wrong?

    • Michael C

      This couple does not operate a church. They operate an open-to-the-public business.

      Civil rights laws are not just supported by “the left.” People on all sides of the political spectrum support non-discrimination legislation.

      Around half a century ago, the federal government created laws that prevent open-to-the-public businesses from discriminating on the basis of certain characteristics (religion, race, sex, national origin, etc).

      Some states (like Minnesota since 1993) include sexual orientation as one of these characteristics as being protected from discrimination. This means that employers cannot fire employees just because they’re gay. It also means that a person cannot be denied housing just because they’re gay. And as it relates to this case, open-to-the-public businesses cannot refuse service to customers just because they’re gay.

      These civil rights laws to not force any business to offer any specific product or service. The business has the right to pick which services they’re willing to offer to the general public. If they do choose, however, to offer a specific product or service, they are not permitted to refuse that product or service on the basis of the customer’s religion, race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

      Churches, religious organizations, non-profits, private clubs, etc. are all exempt from civil rights legislation (meaning that they’re free to discriminate against whomever they please). For example, a church is free to refuse to allow gay people to become members (or women, or black people, or the disabled, ect.). A synagogue, temple, mosque, or chapel is free to refuse to officiate the wedding of gay couples (or any other couple they please). Groups like the Boy Scouts are free to kick gay kids out. Etc.

      Does that make sense?

      • Guest254

        Sexual orientation is not a race. Races of people survive by male and female procreating

        • Michael C

          I apologize. I was hoping that my comment wasn’t too confusing.

          Sexual orientation is not a race.

          Of course sexual orientation isn’t a race. I never said it was. Religion is not a race either yet you are protected from discrimination on the basis of your religious beliefs. Sex is also not a race, yet you are protected from discrimination on the basis of your sex. National origin isn’t a race either, nor is veteran status or pregnancy or disability or familial status or age.

          I feel like you’re attempting to make a point that just isn’t fully fleshed out yet.

          • Guest254

            Yes well the confusion comes in because it seems that you and others try to identify an act with who you are as a person. That act doesn’t stop a male for being a male and a female from being a female. Thus creating a race of people from people who procreate, in order to be a race you should need to be able to exist within yourself. For example, if I eat cheese, that makes me a cheese eater and if you don’t like it or hate me for it, I have the right to day discrimination. No, it means I eat cheese. No matter what you identify with you have a common right as man or woman to dwell peaceably with other men and women, but wanting a society to accommodate you because the society now has to ensure safety. Well, there will always be enmity between straight male and other male, why? Because the two can’t exist on the same plane. The two can’t dwell together as peaceable neighbors without one crossing a boundary. No man wants another man hawking at him, so the two can’t exist on the same plane. So now calling yourself hay doesn’t make you a race or religion or practice. Without procreation you’re race would cease to exist.

          • Michael C

            I’m guessing that all of that made sense in your head but unfortunately, something seems to have been lost in translation.

            Civil rights laws protect us from discrimination on the basis of many different personal characteristics we may possess. Race is only one of those characteristics.

            A characteristic doesn’t need to be race related in order to be considered protected from discrimination.

            Well, there will always be enmity between straight male and other male

            I feel bad for you that this is how you view things. It seems very sheltered and fearful to me. I assure you that get along just fine with my heterosexual male coworkers, family members, and close friends. If I was the praying type, I’d be doing it for you tonight. Instead I’ll just wish you peace and understanding. Goodnight.

          • Guest254

            Civil rights? So everything that happened to blacks and African Americans happened to other male.

            I like to view things the straight and narrow. Makes life easier

            You have the ability to procreate and keep life going and you choose to throw that away?

          • james blue

            How are gay people who have the ability to procreate, but do not, different from straight people who have the ability to procreate but do not?

          • james blue

            without procreation all humans would cease to exist, including religious ones. All gay people come from a heterosexual coupling. Religion is a choice, so why should that be protected from discrimination?

          • Kevin Quillen

            the Constitution protects religious speech and activity. queer marriage is not protected in the document. Idiots who think that the Constitution is a “living” document added queer marriage. They are wrong.

          • james blue

            The constitution only protects us from government, not the private sector. Big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws prevent discrimination in the private sector.

            However the Constitution protects non religious speech too and heterosexual marriage is not protected in the document either.

            Do you view the constitution as a document to protect freedom or a document to justify limiting it?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The Supreme Court disagrees.

          • Guest254

            Because there are many different beliefs and religions and some religions will put you to death if you don’t believe or follow another religion.

          • james blue

            So by that logic homosexuals should be protected from discrimination…right?

          • Guest254

            No, it’s not a race, belief or religion.

          • james blue

            Okay that brings us back to square 1….Why should religion or belief be protected, but not sexuality?

          • Guest254

            By sexuality what do you mean? There is apparently more than one preference defined.

          • james blue

            Let’s just deal with heterosexuality/homosexuality here, I’d like to limit your chances to avoid answering.

          • Guest254

            But you can’t because, there are many defining views and expressions on sexuality. One is just a door for another. Sexuality is protected on the marriage bed.

          • james blue

            Okay. Then I’m wasting cyber ink conversing with you.

          • Guest254

            Thank you. You can’t force me to define something that is undefinable by man standards. I won’t go biblically with you because you standards aren’t based biblically. But even nature understands that a man’s part is matched inside a female’s part. Anything other than that is just man adding to. So I suppose people into beastialilty have constitutional rights to marry animals. Well, by your definition they do. People who are into voyeurism have constitutional rights to marry anyone they watch. Well according to your definition they do. So no, I don’t think it should be protected. Those that do anything outside of nature’s purpose should accept the persecution that comes with it.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No, it’s a different classification. Also protected.

          • Guest254

            The fact that you called it “it” and don’t have a name for it, shows that it is nonsense. Just spreading it as nonsense

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, it shows that I used a pronoun. “It” is sexual orientation.

          • Guest254

            Which has never been on any questionaire or application

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay…and? I’m really unclear on the point you’re trying to make here.

          • Guest254

            Sexual orientation is not an identifier by the constitution

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so? No one said it was.

      • Robert

        Yes it does .And It’s also scriptural to not have unrepentant homosexuals or racists or thieves or murders or drunks as members of a christian congregation.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      The state isn’t forcing the church to do anything. Churches are exempt from non-discrimination laws.

      Churches, in fact, have nothing to do with this story, except that “being Christian” is the reason the Larsens have given as to why they shouldn’t have to videotape gay weddings, which is not an excuse. The Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. United States that “religious freedom” does not exempt you from having to follow laws of neutral applicability.

      • Emmanuel

        thank you. Can I ask you this. You said Which is not an excuse. I found that interesting because their belief is not an excuse but a reason.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          See Tangent’s response below.

    • Robert

      The state wants to take over the church much like it did I’n Germany and Scandinavia.

      • Emmanuel

        Thank you and we are headed to a state church.

    • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

      Congress is prohibited by the constitution from establishing a religion by law, but state legislatures are permitted to establish any religion by law, or prohibit the free exercise of religion as they please.

      • Tangent002

        No. Laws passed by the states cannot conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Civics 101.

      • Emmanuel

        Thank you and that is what I needed to know.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          He’s wrong. Everson v. Board of Education.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Of course I’m wrong. However, that’s what the state is doing: they are setting out to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, you can’t simply break any law you want and then claim “yeah but this is a religious requirement” as a defense. Reynolds v. United States.

    • Tangent002

      A person’s religion is not a license to break the law.

  • bowie1

    My former brother in law being in the film production business in Canada has created a couple of television shows but I wonder how he would be affected if he was in one of these areas. I’m not sure what his views would be on it but I’m sure he would want only to be involved if it was in line with his desires for a show he can be proud of.

    • Willem

      So you think he would not be proud of a film about a lesbian couple with a bunch of kids?

      • Darren H

        Two lesbians cannot have a child.
        Neither can two gay men.
        It takes a man and a woman to create a child.
        Homosexuals cannot create a new life together. They’re not equal to normal people.

        • Willem

          Puleeze ,jezus just emailed me and she ask me to tell you that she think your homophobic BS is not normal ,its boring and stupid ,she wants you to see a shrink asap and report back to her at once!

          • Amos Moses

            guessing you need a biology lesson ….. from the Creator ….

        • james blue

          So should sterile heterosexual people not be allowed to marry?

        • OhSoGood

          You poor thing. Many straight couples cannot create a child (often as a result of voluntary surgery).

          The good news is that procreation isn’t legally required for anything.

  • Michael C

    Just like all of the other discrimination cases that ADF has attempted to argue, this will also fail. ADF will bring in tons of money for themselves fund-raising off of this couple’s blood, sweat, and tears. Unfortunately, ADF knows that they’re on the wrong side of the law. They’ve been told over and over by courts across the nation. They know this couple has no hope of prevailing. They put this couple’s livlihood in jeopardy in the attempt to curb civil rights legislation that protects gay people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Unfortunately, firing gay people like me from their jobs, denying people like me housing, and refusing people like me service at stores and restaurants is 100% legal in most of the country. It is ADF’s goal to keep it that way. …and they’re willing to put this couple in harm’s way to achieve it.

  • Scott Davenport

    How the heck do they get away with passing unconstitutional garbage like this?? Is this something that buttwadd Al Frankin came up with?? You people in Minn. need to thaw out, grow a pair, and put an end to evil crap……

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What unconstitutional crap would you be referring to?

    • james blue

      Should it be legal for a private sector business to refuse goods, services, housing, employment etc. to Christians?

      • Nidalap

        Yep. More especially if there are other companies willing to provide those same services.

        • james blue

          Good man, however I shall wait for the stance of the guy making the argument about the constitutionality of such laws.

          • Nidalap

            How can I be a “good man”?
            Shouldn’t I be an equal scuzzball to all those saying it’s okay for companies to deny service? (^_^)

          • james blue

            A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whoever they wish for whatever reason they wish and let the market deal with them.

            What gets me is when people have the double standard and want the right to discriminate while at the same time demand to be protected from discrimination.

          • Nidalap

            I can respect that view.
            If you REALLY believe it though, you will have stated it to the other side as well, not just to the Christians…

          • james blue

            My comment history is open to public view. My comments here are tailored to the person I asked the question of.

  • Willem

    Total homophobic BS

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    USA’s Nazi persecutions against Christians continue. It’s unbelievable to see that Americans, among all peoples on earth, have to endure this kind of bullying on the American soil. Where is freedom? Skin colors and genders are God’s creation, but homosexuality is human’s sinful choice. Christians must never submit to West’s Sodomism. Such submission is a disgrace as a human being, not just as a Christian. Man must be ashamed of sexual immorality, never force others to promote it. A common sense. Promotion of immorality is a crime against humanity.

    • Roy Hobs

      You really need to watch — Communism by the Back Door

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Communism is atheism and atheism is always wrong.

        • Jenny Ondioline

          No, communism is not atheism. Do you possess a dictionary?

          • Amos Moses

            do you possess a history book …………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Do you have a history book that tells you communists are atheists?

          • Amos Moses

            most of them acknowledge that it grows out of a-theism ……. and all of the prominent communist leaders were and are a-theist and antagonistic to christianty ….. as you ARE ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            But you didn’t say that. You said they were the same thing which is demonstrably false.

          • Amos Moses

            read back and tell me where ………. but you cannot be a communist and be a christian …… it is antithetical ……… and communism is not only wrong …. it is dangerous to humanity ……..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It appears Grace said it but it appears you were in agreement with her.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Communists massacred and abused countless millions of believers everywhere they took control. The Westerners do not know the terror because they never suffered the atrocities of the communist-atheists. Atheism is evil.

        • Roy Hobs

          Grace………….watch the documentary — The Greatest Story Never Told.

  • Robert

    Sounds like a bunch of God haters have some how snaked there way into the lawmaking of Minnesota’s laws. Their slimy laws need to be throan in the garbage heap where they belong . I Think if we ever can get some brave christian people into the supreme court’s instead of pansy wishy washy ones we can get this protection for Christian people with. Principals accomplished.

    • Michael C

      Do you believe that businesses should be permitted to fire employees, deny housing, and refuse service at public accommodations just because a person is gay?

      It is illegal for businesses to discriminate against Christians in these ways.

      • OhSoGood

        They like feeling that they’re “special”…

        What they call “persecution” is simply the fact that legally, they are not special and should be treated like all other citizens.

      • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

        The states should be executing these fine folks for practicing sodomy. There is no reason to fire them and deny them housing, nor refuse them service once they are dead.

        • Michael C

          Advocating the extermination of an entire minority population of people over ideological differences is just not something that sane, rational people do.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            I also advocate the extermination of murderers, who also form a minority population based on their behavior.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Murderers kill people. Homosexuals do not.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            I also advocate the extermination of rapists, who form a minority population based on behavior. Your capital crimes are not special.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Another act of abuse, which homosexuality is not. Your comparisons make no sense.

          • Roger Peritone

            Neither is your ignorant supersition which advocates the death of people for engaging in CONSENSUAL, activity, you superstitious barbarian.

            Your comparisons are stupid as hell. Are you sure you passed grade school?

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            You’re shouting so loudly that you didn’t notice that you just said that rape is consensual.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No he didn’t, but I suspect that might be because you have a very “creative” definition of rape.

          • Roger Peritone

            Are you a fool? I’m talking about homosexuality. For rape, the bible has the guy pay off the woman’s father and she then belongs to him.

            Note that rape is by definition NOT consensual. I was therfore not talking about rape. I thought the meaning would be obvious. I guess not.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. Someone is the fool here, defending abominable iniquity.

          • Roger Peritone

            Yeah It’s you.. You’re defending the murder of people in consensual relationships just because they are of the same gender. And why? A book tells you to.

            As I said: You are a fool. Seriously. What is it about a consensual same-sex couple that is so “abominable”?

            The fact that they can’t naturally have kids? Who cares?

            As I said: You are a superstitious barbarian.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Okay, you got me. I refuse to explain what is disgusting about what you are defending. You can keep it. All of it, in all its abominable abomination.

          • Roger Peritone

            I’d like to see you try to explain what’s so bloody horrible about consensual sexual actiivity between adults of the same gender that they should die for it, only try doing so without using some “holy book” to do so.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            What are you talking about? That sanitised bloodless unstinking description of “activity” has nothing to do with reality.

          • Roger Peritone

            What are you talking about? How is my description “sanitized”? Plus: You have yet to explain what is so horrible about consensual sexual actiivity between adults of the same gender. Withoug using some “holy book” as justificiation.

            Do you just find it “icky”? Then don’t do it, and don’t spy on those who do.

            Simple as that.

          • BobJohnson994

            You are welcomed to be disgusted by homosexuality, that is not at issue. But you can’t refuse to serve them in a restaurant, or otherwise not treat them like citizens. Maybe you’d prefer to have segregated lunch counters? One for blacks, one for gays, and one for “us regular folk”?

          • BobJohnson994

            In regular reasoning, you don’t get to win a point by applying a label and saying the label is your argument. It would be like me saying you are “zogreb” and everyone that is “zorgerb” is wrong. Do you get it?

          • Roger Peritone

            True. Too bad that’s what the BIBLE does advocate! As well as various xian preachers! Stephen Anderson, for example of “Faithful Word Baptist Church”!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Flagged for advocating violence.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            That this comment is allowed to remain after you reported it is shocking in the extreme.

          • Roger Peritone

            Take screenshots, just in case. This needs to be tracked, stored, and spread so people can see what the religous right are like.

        • Jenny Ondioline

          Listen to yourself.

        • Trilemma

          That is so morally reprehensible.

        • johndoe

          More of your cowardness is showing. People like yourself are a joke. Your ignorance makes me laugh!

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            As an expert on ignorance, you should know that “cowardness” is not a word.

          • johndoe

            You are a coward….make sense to you now?

        • Parodyx

          I bet you have a nice, tight, squeaky-clean ass hole.

        • ToneBurst

          Christian News Network, you have a comment here advocating for the execution of homosexuals and at least one person claims to have reported it for advocating violence. Why have you not removed it?

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Execution is an appropriate lawful response to curtail the actual violence of certain stripe. It is also to be the orthodox Christian position. You do violence to the conditions you claim to call on.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Homosexuality is not violence. And even the Westboro Baptist church, as hate-filled an organization as they are, don’t advocate killing. Your comment is nauseating and vile.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Not violence? So the abuse of children is by their consent, and drugs and alcohol play no part in recruitment? Even if your fiction were true, it would still be a nauseating and vile fiction.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Why are you trying to claim that abuse of children is the fault of homosexuals?

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            You’re pathetic. You know it’s true, but you pretend that there’s a question. I blame their parents, the toxins in the water, the government system that failed them, the church and little green men from Mars, but it would clearly be absurd to suggest sexual acts on children by homosexuals are the fault of the homosexuals. And such acts have not been heard of since the ancient Greeks, because people are so much better now than then because they have grindr.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            That is the vilest thing I have ever read. Your issue, sir, appears to be pedophilia, not homosexuality. Do you not understand the difference?

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            Perhaps there is a shred of honesty left in you: you didn’t deny it.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I deny it completely. I would love to see you even DARE to claim to have proof of such a thing.

          • ExiledV2

            Mr. van Heerden, are you a Protestant?

            I ask because it is the official position of orthodox Christianity that Protestants are heretics and apostates who are to be executed if they do not recant. Unrecanted heresy and apostasy are peccata mortalia.

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            My mortal sins are forgiven in Christ, in any language you choose: the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.
            The doctrines of men do not overrule the commands of God. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
            soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in
            hell.

          • ToneBurst

            Fine example of a Christian, you sick bastard. Homosexuals don’t touch children, you’re thinking of pedophiles, and wouldn’t Jesus be proud of you for wanting to kill human beings. Are you a member of the KKK?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Once again you show no ability to understand that homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things. And “recruiting” – no, homosexuals don’t do that. Southern Baptists do.

          • Roger Peritone

            Those are different things than homosexuality. If you have a problem with child abuse, then you need to have a talk with the group of people known as the “clergy”!

          • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

            I’m completely in favor of the execution of homosexual clergy. That would be grand.

          • Roger Peritone

            Consenual sex between informed adults is not violence, you superstitious inbred fool.

        • TwoRutRoad

          Execution for religious reasons? That sounds like terrorism.

  • Kevin Quillen

    I think preemptive suits are dangerous. By doing this one is saying that the state has authority to decide. It does not. This couple should do their thing and take what consequences come. Sue later if necessary. Challenge that state’s authority, don’t give it to them upfront.

  • Kevin Quillen

    Christians must stand up and do right regardless of law. Law is not always right.

    • zeddicuskotor

      Treating everyone the same is not right?

      • Amos Moses

        because not everyone is the same ………… i treat murderers and thieves different than those who are not ….. i treat my children differently as they are all different ……… and so does God/Christ ……………

        • Jenny Ondioline

          And as long as you continue to compare murderers and thieves to homosexuals, you’re going to be taken to task for doing so because it makes no sense. You still appear to not understand informed consent.

          • Amos Moses

            Political Correctness is nothing less than mind control …..
            1. Cause people to worry about offending those around them
            2. Once afraid to speak out, then afraid to think it
            3. Once afraid to think it, it is never spoken
            4. Control of the public is achieved

            how does it feel to be duped by mind control …… you seem to have it all down pat …

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Nothing you just said has anything to do with why you compare homosexuality, which has no victims, to murder and theft which do.

          • Amos Moses

            yeah it does …. you are attempting to use mind control to stifle debate through demanding people be PC …… and you are failing miserably at it ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I don’t use mind control. I use facts and reason. And the fact is that homosexuality cannot be compared to murder.

          • Amos Moses

            whether you recognize it or not … yes … that is exactly what you are doing ….. trying to control the conversation by controlling the words used and the ideas presented ….. if you do not realize it then you are just a mouthpiece and a minion …………

            ” homosexuality cannot be compared to murder.” …….. it most certainly can and is ….. it murders both participants in it ……….. slowly …. but no less ……….

          • TwoRutRoad

            Mind control is what religion does. It calls itself the TRUTH and demands respect for people of FAITH, and makes promises and threats about an afterlife and it demands money from the gullible. It murders people slowly by not allowing them to live the ONE life they will have, and focusing instead on preparing for an afterlife. It’s a sham. It’s snake oil. And you are buying it.

          • Amos Moses

            good thing christianity is not religion …… scripture talks about a true and pure religion …….. has nothing to do with what you mention ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Please explain to me how “it murders both participants in it”. Do I really need to point out the many same-sex couples out there living lives as full and long as their straight counterparts?

            After you’re done that, you can apologize for accusing me of lying. And that should STILL leave you a little bit of time to recognize that what I’ve said is entirely true and is in no sense “mind control”. Just straightforward, easily-verified truth, Amos.

          • TwoRutRoad

            Replace “Political Correctness” with “Religion”.

          • Amos Moses

            cannot …. they are not synonymous ………

          • TwoRutRoad

            Ok, then. I’ll do it for you.

            RELIGION is nothing less than mind control …..
            1. Cause people to worry about offending those around them
            2. Once afraid to speak out, then afraid to think it
            3. Once afraid to think it, it is never spoken
            4. Control of the public is achieved

            how does it feel to be duped by mind control …… you seem to have it all down pat …

          • Amos Moses

            cute but FAIL ………

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, it’s not a fail. Everything is accurate.

        • zeddicuskotor

          Even murderers and thieves have a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, a court appointed lawyer, religious freedom, protections against cruel and unusual punishments, and to be innocent until proven guilty.

          But thanks for showing everyone that you hate America and wish to live in a fascist state.

          • Amos Moses

            the fascists are the ones who are calling truth evil and using mind control to foster false belief systems and paradigms …… like yourself …… has nothing to do with hate or ‘Merica ….

  • OhSoGood

    Christians receive public accommodations from the civil rights act… the EXACT same protections they decry other citizens having.

    As such, they deserve no special exemption from the law.

  • Tangent002

    The pre-emptive nature of this suit is troubling. I get the impression this couple is seeking free publicity and perhaps baiting homosexuals into ‘targeting’ their business so they can clean up on the inevitable GoFundMe campaign.

    Sorry, but that woman has crazy-eyes.

    • johndoe

      Homosexuals are probably not the best judges of a woman’s appearance.

      • Tangent002

        I’d have no idea about that.