Brief Defending Mississippi’s Conscience Act: No One Has ‘Right’ to Force Part in Same-Sex ‘Weddings’

JACKSON, Miss. — Attorneys representing the governor of Mississippi defended the state’s “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” in appeals court on Friday, declaring that “[n]o one has a ‘fundamental right’ to force an unwilling participant to attend or provide services at his or her wedding.”

“[T]here is nothing wrong with a statute that confers an absolute immunity from state punishment or discrimination upon those who … refuse to participate in abortions, warfare, capital punishment, Sabbath labor, or same-sex weddings,” they wrote.

As previously reported, last April, Bryant signed the Act, H.B. 1523, into law, which prohibits the government from punishing those who decline to officiate same-sex ceremonies or provide services or accommodations for the celebrations, as well as those whose policies require use of locker and restrooms consistent with their biological gender.

“The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that: marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth,” the legislation, authored by House Speaker Philip Gunn, reads.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a legal challenge over the matter, representing two homosexual men—Nykolas Alford and Stephen Thomas—who called the law a “slap in the face” to their plans to tie the knot.

“H.B. 1523 has no rightful place in Mississippi or in our history books, and we’re hopeful this lawsuit can stop as much of it as possible before it goes into effect,” ACLU attorney Josh Block said in a statement.

In July, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves issued a preliminary injunction against the statute, stating that the law allowed “arbitrary discrimination” against homosexuals.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The state has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others,” he opined.

Bryant’s office filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this week, submitted a brief contending that the ACLU has made “false and exaggerated claims about the scope of HB 1523,” such as that restaurants and taxi cab drivers will be permitted to turn away homosexuals, or that businesses can deny services to anyone who has had sexual relations outside of marriage.

“Almost every statement in the CSE plaintiffs’ brief that describes HB 1523 is untrue or misleading in some respect,” attorneys for the governor wrote.

“Suffice it to say that the appellants will not, under any circumstance, interpret HB 1523 to shield restaurateurs that refuse to seat homosexual couples; foster parents who inflict child abuse; counselors who fail to take appropriate steps to prevent suicides; boisterous or disruptive state employees; county clerks who fail to recuse themselves in the manner specified by section 3(8); or jewelers who refuse to sell engagement rings to cohabiting couples,” they explained.

The attorneys noted that the law only applies to forms of personal participation in weddings and nothing else.

“No one has a ‘fundamental right’ to force an unwilling participant to attend or provide services at his or her wedding,” they wrote.

The ACLU had also asserted that the Conscience Act served as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, but Bryant’s office argued that “[l]aws that accommodate conscientious objectors and shield them from state-sponsored punishment or discrimination signify tolerance—not endorsement—of the protected conscientious or religious beliefs.”

“Americans shouldn’t live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses simply for affirming marriage as a husband-wife union,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, one of the attorneys on the case, said in a statement on Tuesday. “Those challenging this law have not and will not be harmed, but want to restrict freedom and impose their beliefs on others by ensuring dissenters are left open to the government discrimination that has already occurred in states without protective laws like this one.”


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
  • Michael C

    Firstly, it’s already 100% legal for businesses to refuse service to gay people in the vast majority of Mississippi (as well as the rest of the country).

    Second, does Gov. Bryant believe that a business owners’ deeply held, personal beliefs grant them the right to pick and choose to which customers they will be willing to provide their goods and services?

    If this were the case, then some business owners would be permitted to refuse to sell flowers to interracial couples or cakes to interfaith couples.

    …or is this situation somehow different because he doesn’t believe that gay people deserve protections from discrimination?

    • Amos Moses

      again …. conflating race with depravity is RACIST …………

      • Michael C

        …. conflating race with depravity is RACIST …………

        Please explain where I’ve done that.

        • Amos Moses

          “If this were the case, then some business owners would be permitted to refuse to sell flowers to interracial couples or cakes to interfaith couples.”

          because they are the samething ….. right ….. NOPE ….. WRONG ….. and racist ………..

          • DTrevor

            Comparing religious belief to religious belief is not logically equivalent to comparing “depravity” (which is of no relevance to the current discussion) with race.

            Often, when people confronted with the question of whether a religious belief regarding race is subject to the same legal protection of religious belief regarding sexuality, they dishonestly misrepresent the comparison of being one of race to sexuality. This is because they are shameless liars who are too cowardly to admit that they seek special protection for certain religious beliefs that would not apply to other religious beliefs.

      • William

        You continuously erroneously conflate race with the behavior of race-mixing. Most would likely agree there is nothing depraved about race; however, there are many who view the behavior of race-mixing as depraved.

        • Amos Moses

          Nope …….. that is what homosexuals are doing to conflate their depravity with race …. and it is racist ………….. and this is a christian forum …. and what is discussed here are those things and how they relate to christianity …… NOT what the “majority” or others think of them ….. it is irrelevant to christianity ………

          • DTrevor

            You are again lying. Race mixing is not equivalent to race. Your attempt to conflate the two concepts demonstrates only that you are a liar.

  • J J

    The left loves standards so much, they double them.
    Gays’ feelings matter. Christians’ feelings don’t matter. This is not equality, this is reducing some people to second-class status.

    • Michael C

      No, everyone is equal. Christians and gay people and gay Christians and straight Christians are all equal and should be treated as such. Nobody’s rights are more or less important than anyone else’s. That’s not what this matter is even about.

      I believe that businesses should not refuse service just because a customer is gay. If there is a business that opposes selling a certain product to some of the general public on the basis of their personally held religious beliefs, I believe that they should not make that product or service publicly available. It’s as simple as that.

      • Amos Moses

        Just more confused and broken thinking ………

        • DTrevor

          Are you able to present a reasoned rebuttal, or did you offer a flippant dismissal because you recognize that you cannot rationally rebut Michael C’s statement?

          • johndoe

            I vote for the latter

          • Amos Moses

            i dismiss MC’s post as it is always the samething …… trying to conflate race and depravity ……

          • DTrevor

            Your dismissal upon a completely dishonest basis does not invalidate his statements. Your dismissal demonstrates only that you are dishonest.

      • Lynn

        I believe the article is saying “You have the right to live as you believe, but you do not have the right to force others to violate their beliefs”. So while a jeweler cannot refuse to sell a ring because they are not actively participating in the event, an officiant of a church can decline services because that requires active participation. (And for those who want to use this logic in regards to that Kim lady, there is a difference… an officiant in a church is a religious servant, while Kim was a public government servant. Once she accepted office, she had to serve the law over her religious beliefs.) I do not believe they are saying one’s rights are above another’s. I believe they are saying the rights of those who do not agree are just as important, and the line being drawn to determine the difference between discrimination and protection of one’s own beliefs is the level of participation required of the service.

        • Michael C

          Hi Lynn, The First Amendment has always acknowledged the right of churches, ministers, clergy, ect. to refuse to host or officiate any ceremony or service that is contrary to their religious beliefs. There is absolutely no reason to create new laws that do the same thing that the Constitution already takes care of.

          So while a jeweler cannot refuse to sell a ring because they are not actively participating in the event,…

          It’s unfortunate but you are mistaken about the scope of Mississippi’s unconstitutional HB 1523. It specifically states that a salesperson at Zales (for example) can refuse to sell a gay couple some gold bands out of their display case just because the couple is gay. It specifically says that.

          • Lynn

            Apologies. When I first read the article, it didn’t register in my brain like that, but as I read the bill itself, I see what you are talking about now.

      • Jason Todd

        Why do you believe that?

  • james blue

    So does this law mean someone can refuse goods and services to Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. because they deeply object to religious beliefs?

    • Amos Moses

      SSM is not a “religious” belief ………. and if you cant “force a woman to be pregnant and give birth” ……. how is it you can force anyone else to do what they do not want to do ……. even though there is no biblical mandate to not do business with pagans …..

      • james blue

        I didn’t say SSM is a religious belief. I asked if this law protects the conscience rights of people who have objections to providing goods and services to any given person of faith.

        • Scott Davenport

          Unlike the homos, if someone doesn’t want our money, we sure as heck will make sure they don’t get it. There’s always another merchant or vendor more than willing to accept our cash.

          It goes the same for the mental perverts….they can always go to another business that will be more than happy to take their money, but no, we know what their’s and Satan’s agenda really is. And so does God… 🙂

          • james blue

            I very much doubt that, but we’ll probably never know because nobody is refusing them.

      • DTrevor

        Do you believe that a business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be legally free to refuse service to interracial couples?

        Note that I am not asking about race; I am asking only if you believe that the specific religious belief that I stated is subject to legal protection. Therefore, if you claim that I am comparing race to sexuality then you are either lying or mentally deficient.

        • Amos Moses

          let me make this clear ……. race is not a sin ….. SSM and SSSex IS ……… and YES you are trying to be clever about conflating race and depravity …… and it is RACIST ……..

          • DTrevor

            I observe that you are too much of a dishonest coward to address my question. Instead, you have lied about my question because you are a shameless liar who is too afraid to answer “yes” or “no” to a simple question.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            As far as I can tell, Amos thinks religious freedom only applies to people who believe the same things he does.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not conform to your idea of what the answer “should” be and i am a liar ……. wow …… the answer is not simple and it is certainly NOT a simple yes or no ……. and you have no credibility to call anyone here a liar …………

          • DTrevor

            I asked if a business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be legally free to refuse service to interracial couples. To state my question another way: are the religious beliefs of a business owner who opposes race-mixing subject to the same legal protections as the religious beliefs of a business owner who opposes same-sex coupling?

            The only possible meaningful answers to that question are “yes” or “no”. Any other response demonstrates either a failure to understand the question or a dishonest attempt to misrepresent the question. My question does not conflate race with sexuality and only a liar would claim such.

            If you were not misrepresenting my question then the only possible alternative explanation is that you are too mentally deficient to comprehend my question.

        • Roy Hobs

          I’ll answer it. YES………..a business owner should be allowed to do anything he wishes apart from physical harm. Let the market place dictate whether his actions are ‘just’ or not.

          • Bob Johnson

            Then you are opposed to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.
            You do agree with the Civil Rights Act of 1871

          • Roy Hobs

            Why do you enjoy being told what to do; how to live etc., etc. Be a Man!

    • Emmanuel

      Sure, why not? it goes both ways. Plus, if I know that a clothing store is own by a satanist, I will not go there.

      • Michael C

        It sure sounds like you oppose the Civl Rights Act of 1964. Is this correct?

        • Emmanuel

          I say, everyone can do what they like, shop where they like and be who they want. If store A is not good, go to B.

          • Michael C

            Do you oppose legislation that prohibits certain types of discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations?

          • Scott Davenport

            We already have that in right to work states as far as employment is concerned….and I can see I’d be saying You’re Fired to you on the first day…..

          • Emmanuel

            I don’t. Those are laws and need to be followed. But, we have options and we can pick.

          • DTrevor

            What option, then, has a business owner who holds a sincere belief that God intended the races to remain separate when an interracial couple seeks service?

          • Michael C

            I don’t. Those are laws and need to be followed. But, we have options and we can pick.

            As consumers, we choose where we want to spend our money, yes. This has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

            The question posed by james blue was whether or not businesses are permitted to refuse service on the basis of a customer’s religion and you said “Sure, why not?”

            Now you’re saying that you don’t oppose non-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            Which is it? Did you change your mind?

    • DTrevor

      No; Mississippi’s law only protects the specific religious belief that marriage is reserved to one man and one woman. It protects no other religious beliefs; the law is specifically designed to give special protection to certain religious people.

      • Jason Todd

        And?

        • DTrevor

          My statement serves to address the question asked.

          • Jason Todd

            But what’s your point?

          • james blue

            His point is what the law does and what it does not do.

          • DTrevor

            My “point” is that the law does not allow what was asked.

      • james blue

        Be interesting if it was tested in court.

  • DTrevor

    Unfortunately, this law is too narrowly tailored. Some people believe that God reserved marriage for one man and one woman of the same race, yet the law offers no protection to such people when they refuse to participate in interracial marriages.

  • Emerald

    I am just trying to clarify a few things and I do not wish to argue. I am giving the Christian perspective, and that is all. Yes, we were all born equal and as sinners (Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12, and many more), however once we accept Christ’s payment for our sins on the cross we must do our best to live according to the word of God (Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 13:8, and many more). Many tend to forget that it is God Himself who created marriage and not man. He set the parameters of marriage being for one man and one woman (Genesis 2:22-24). It is a sin to change the Bible or mess with His words (Revelation 22:18-19) as the bible is the inerrant word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). We, as Christians, are not telling these two men how to live, but we ourselves are repeatedly told to try not to sin and to confess and repent if we do (Matthew 4:17, James 4:17-21, and many more). This man who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage would have sinned if he had. The bible is clear on this issue (Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and more). Please do note that sexual preference is equal to a host of other sins and is not singled out. We are not to be a part of helping someone sin, but rather are to stand up for the word of God (Proverbs 10:25, 1 Peter 5:9, and many more). That means we would be compromising our faith if we did what we are clearly told not to do. By asking this baker to partake in aiding this wedding is asking him to do just that. We are also ordered to love our enemies (Luke 6:27-32 and more). It is possible to not endorse a wedding considered against God, but to hold no grudge over the sinner(s). Driving a gay couple in a taxi does not ask us to sin, but asks us to do as we are told by loving those we disagree with. A wedding is an exception as it asks us to compromise our faith. We are answerable to God and we are to honour Him (Matthew 12:36, Proverbs 3:9, and many more). Standing against Him does nothing of the sort. You have your beliefs, but we must stand firm in ours written clearly in the Word of God.

    • DTrevor

      Do you believe that a business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be legally free to refuse service to interracial couples?

      • Jason Todd

        We aren’t talking about skin color. We’re talking about sexual behavior. Please try and keep up.

        • james blue

          The subject is sincere beliefs, not sexuality.

        • DTrevor

          I am in fact asking about legal protections of religious belief, regardless of what those beliefs are.

          Do you believe that the law should only protect religious beliefs relating to sexual behavior?

        • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

          It is very hard for some to keep up.It seems every time there is talk about sexual behavior there are those who bring up *skin color* and also *interracial*.

          • DTrevor

            I bring up the subject because I would like to know if people who seek protection for religious objections to same-sex coupling also believe that protection should apply to religious objections to race-mixing.

            Strangely, very few are willing to provide a simple yes or no answer; instead, they avoid or even dishonestly misrepresent the question as though they are afraid to answer it.

      • Scott Davenport

        I have NEVER been taught in my 56 years that keeping the races separate appears anywhere in the Bible.

        Where are you coming up with this, or are you just being a smartass???

        • DTrevor

          I did not ask about your religious beliefs (in fact, I asked you nothing as my question was directed to Emerald). I asked if the religious belief of a business owner — which may or may not be derived from the Bible — that God intended the races to remain separate should allow that business owner to legally refuse service to interracial couples.

          Do you believe that all religious beliefs are subject to the same legal protection, or do you believe that only your own religious beliefs merit legal protection?

        • Bob Johnson

          Ah, then you are too young to have heard the 1960 Easter Sunday sermon by Bob Jones Sr. titled, “Is Segregation Scriptural”

          • Thornton

            Bob….Thank you so much. So many have no clue as to the religious hatred that was aimed at the black community to keep them separate. That is why it was ILLEGAL, excuse me, for blacks and whites to marry back then. So many forget all that.

      • Emerald

        DTrevor, In the Old Testament the Israelites were commanded not to intermarry, but that was because back then the risk of being led astray into idolatry (as they were surrounded by pagan tribes and nations) was the likely outcome (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). It was not about race, but about staying true to God. In the New Testament believers are told not to be yoked with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14). It has nothing to do with race. There is no place in the life of the Christian for favoritism based on race (James 2:1-10, Romans 10:12). Christians get their directions for life from the bible which is the word of God. He is our master. We follow Him and Him alone.

        • DTrevor

          You did not address my question. I made no reference to the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is not directly relevant to my question.

          Do you believe that a business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be legally free to refuse service to interracial couples?

          The only possible meaningful answers to my question are “yes” or “no”.

          • Emerald

            DTrevor, In fact I did address your question with a very straightforward and Biblical response: “There is no place in the life of the Christian for favoritism based on race (James 2:1-10, Romans 10:12).” I am a Christian. I follow the Bible and Christ. My answer came directly from the Bible. Can you not put 2 + 2 together? I obviously do not oppose interracial marriage provided they are not homosexual. I hope you understand now. Giving a Biblical answer is simply showing the reason(s) I believe what I do.

          • DTrevor

            I did not ask if you disagree with interracial marriage. Your personal opinion of interracial marriage is of no relevance to my question.

            Bob Jones, Sr., author of “Is Segregation Scriptural”, disagrees with you. The late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Restored Church of God, also disagreed, as does the still-living David C. Pack.

            For what reason should I accept your interpretation over theirs?

            Moreover, you have still not actually addressed my question: do you believe that a business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be legally free to refuse service to interracial couples? The only possible meaningful answers to my question are “yes” or “no”.

            Are you unable to answer my question because you cannot comprehend that some people hold religious beliefs that are not the same as your own?

          • Emerald

            Herbert W. Armstrong was the leader of a highly questionable belief system he himself created in 1933. The World Wide Church of God and The Restored Church of God both operate under his belief system. It is now led by David C.
            Pack. I
            am not going to get into a debate regarding Armstrongism. Walter Martin, in his over 500
            page book, “The Kingdom of Cults” goes into great depth regarding them.
            This is a mature discussion about
            whether a Christian has the right to stand firm in his or her beliefs
            when it comes to LGBT issues. I have given you the Bible’s position, I
            have given you my position based upon the Bible. I am not going to start debating the legitimacy of Armstrong and Pack. Good if
            they disagree with me. I do not acknowledge them as a true Christian organization adhering to the Bible and, most importantly, to the Gospels.

          • DTrevor

            Dismissing religious beliefs with which you disagree as “questionable” or a “cult” does not cause those beliefs to cease to exist. That you do not acknowledge their beliefs as true is not relevant to my question, which you have still not addressed.

            Do you believe that a business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be legally free to refuse service to interracial couples? The only possible meaningful answers to my question are “yes” or “no”.

          • Emerald

            DTrevor, What some hypothetical man believes is a non-Biblical stance which means my answer is no except in the case of homosexuality that happens to be interracial. You yourself said, ” Your personal opinion of interracial marriage is of no relevance to my question.” We are not in some court of law. Your “yes and no’s” are unreasonable in this discussion. I did not come here to discuss race and I am not going to speak for some made up person. I made my position clear.

            I also gave you a highly respected book and it’s author as my reason for not believing in Armstrongism. I will also tell you that my own Baptist pastor made it very clear to me what Armstrongism is when he himself gave me the book I am referring to. Evangelical churches do not recognize Armstrongism as true Christianity. It is not a matter or it being my opinion. If you want to believe it all I can say is I will pray for you. I did not come here to debate race or Armstrongism. This discussion is closed.

          • Michael C

            Here in the United States, our personal freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution. This means that even if our deeply held, personal religious beliefs are wrong, they are still protected. In the eyes of the government, all religious beliefs are equal because we don’t give our government the power to delineate between “right” and “wrong” religious beliefs.

            This means that if a person believes that the bible says that interracial marriage is wrong, this belief is protected by the First Amendment. If a person believes that the bible says that interfaith marriage is wrong, this belief is protected by the First Amendment. And, if a person believes that the bible says that same-sex marriage is wrong, this belief is protected by the First Amendment. As far as our government is concerned, all of these beliefs are equally protected and of equal importance.

            Now, with this understanding (even though you may disagree with someone else’s religious beliefs), do you believe that a business owner who’s deeply held religious beliefs are in opposition to interracial or interfaith marriages would be permitted to refuse service to an interracial or interfaith couple?

            Does a baker have the freedom to refuse to “partake in aiding” an interracial wedding if they feel it “compromises their faith?” Would a florist be permitted to refuse to “endorse” an interfaith wedding if they personally consider such a union to be “against God?”

          • Bob Johnson

            “I have given you the Bible’s position, I have given you my position based on the Bible’s position.”

            I read this as meaning you alone have the only correct interpretation of the Bible. Is it possible for other groups, such as Catholics, Mormons, and Episcopalians, to have different interpretations? And if a member of one of these groups holds public office and holds a view against that you believe, that person can refuse you service.

          • DTrevor

            Another important question is whether Emerald believes that only his interpretation of the Bible is subject to legal protection.

  • Roy Hobs

    Christians — let homosexuals have their paper marriage. We know as Believers that “One Flesh” is an impossibility between two members of the same sex. Let them have it!
    areyoumarried dot wordpress. dot com.

    • DTrevor

      The problem is that allowing homosexuals to even have “paper marriage” creates the false impression that the United States of America is not a Christian theocracy and that people in the nation are somehow permitted to believe differently than we do.

      • Roy Hobs

        True Believers should have never allowed “Lawyers” to be involved. Should never have included the “system” i.e., Courts etc. Marriage should have remained between the man and the woman and ‘maybe’ the family. When a man and woman have sex, they join their bodies as ‘one flesh’. This is the marriage of two flesh into one. No need for Courts; Lawyers or even Parental permission.
        But Jesus did warn us.

        • Bob Johnson

          Then a couple is free to have a Christian wedding and forgo all the legal protections and benefits such as tax breaks, medical coverage, hospital visitation, those 1500 laws. Laws that also recognize Hindu weddings and Buddhist wedding as well .

          By-the-way, Theravada Buddhists are atheists.

          • Roy Hobs

            “… forgo all the legal protections and benefits such as tax breaks, medical coverage, hospital visitation, those 1500 laws…”
            I guess it depends on what is most important……

  • bowie1

    Why don’t these gay men just go to someone that is willing to “tie the knot” for them?

    • Scott Davenport

      Satan has a hard time stirring up trouble going that route… 🙂

      They have an agenda and are playing right into their masters’ hands…

    • DTrevor

      Do you believe that a county clerk employee who holds a religious belief that God intended the races to remain separate should be permitted to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

      • Amos Moses

        conflating race to depravity is RACIST ………….

        • DTrevor

          As I am engaging in no such conflation, you are lying about my question because you are too much of a dishonest coward to answer with a simple “yes” or “no”. I observe that such cowardice and dishonesty is common amongst marriage equality opponents.

          • Amos Moses

            “belief that God intended the races to remain separate should be permitted to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

            CONFLATION …………. the process or result of fusing items into one entity; fusion; amalgamation ………. race and depravity ………. FAIL …..

          • DTrevor

            I am comparing a religious belief to another religious belief. You are continuing to lie about my statement because you are an unrepentant liar and a coward.

          • Amos Moses

            you are conflating race and depravity …. and if you do not like your deception being exposed then you should go deceive elsewhere ……

          • DTrevor

            I am not conflating race and depravity. I am comparing one religious belief with another. Your continued dishonest misrepresentation of my comparison demonstrates only that you are a coward and a liar.

          • Amos Moses

            comparison …. conflation ….. the only comparison is the conflation ……. you are conflating race with depravity ….. and it is RACIST ………. go deceive elsewhere ………..

          • DTrevor

            Restating your lie demonstrates only that you are a liar.

            I have not conflated race with depravity. You are a shameless liar for claiming that I have.

            I have asked only if people who believe that business owners who religiously object to same-sex coupling should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples also believe that business owners who religiously object to race mixing should be allowed to refuse service to interracial couples. The only possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”, yet so many people are too afraid to state either answer.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. exposing your lie is what is happening ………. “refuse service to same-sex couples also believe that business owners who religiously object to race mixing ” … you are trying to say that race and depravity have the same origin ….. it is a lie and it is racist ……….. “yet so many people are too afraid to state either answer.” …… NOPE … it is a FALSE PARADIGM
            and deserves no answer except to point out that the comparison is false and it is an insult to persons of color ……………. and it makes the person drawing the comparison a RACIST ……..

          • DTrevor

            I have made no mention of “depravity” nor did I mention any origin of “depravity” nor did I claim that race and “depravity” have the same origin. You are therefore lying about my statements. Again, you demonstrate that you are too much of a dishonest coward to answer “yes” or “no” to a simple question.

            Your dishonest accusation of racism is yet another attempt to distract from the reality that you are too afraid to answer a simple question.

          • Amos Moses

            when you bring up race and homosexuality, which is depravity, and you are trying to draw a parallel between the two …… and that is RACIST …….. and it is insulting to people of color … and it is a lie ………. and you deserve no answer other than to point out what you are trying to do ………. say that race and depravity of homosexuality are similar ……… WRONG …..

          • Bob Johnson

            Okay, Amos, what about the deeply held belief by some orthodox Jews that Jews and Christians should not intermarry? As a justice of the peace, could this person refuse to marry a mixed religious couple? Or would this wedding be considered racist or depravity or some other mortal sin?

          • Amos Moses

            there is no “mortal sin” against that ….. so not even sure what you are talking about ……. marrying a nonbeliever is not forbidden …… but it is not recommended either ……. if the person performing the ceremony had an issue with it ….. i have no problem with his refusal ……. and actually …… there is no biblical need for a ceremony other than public acknowledgement of what already exists ……. in the US before government involvement …. a pastor showed up and wrote down the union in the family bible ….. nothing beyond that was really required ………….

          • DTrevor

            Are you unaware that some people hold religious beliefs that you do not, or are you simply avoiding answering the question because you are a dishonest liar?

          • Amos Moses

            i do not answer dishonest, racist and false paradigm questions …….. simple as that …… and you can make all the allegations you want ….. i do not care ……. the only one “dishonest” in this conversation is the racist asking the question and demanding a yes or no answer when it is a false premise of a question ……. homosexuality and race have not one thing to do with the other ….. and your desire for an answer does not change that one iota ……race is not depravity ….. homosexuality is depraved …………

          • DTrevor

            Your attempt to justify your cowardice by dishonestly claiming that my question is dishonest, racist and “false paradigm” is not logically equivalent to a rational response. You are a shameless liar and a coward.

            Your assertion that homosexuality is “depraved” is an unsubstantiated assertion. It also does not constitute a response to my question.

            Additionally, the fact remains that I am comparing one religious belief with another. I am asking if a religious belief relating to race-mixing is subject to the same legal protection as religious belief regarding sexuality. Such a question is not a declaration that race and “depravity” are equal, and you are a liar for claiming that it is.

          • Amos Moses

            so all you have is ad hominem ………. K ………. you think you have the ultimate “got cha” question ….. the questions is a false premise …..

          • DTrevor

            I have more than ad hominem. I am simply noting that you have, thus far, refused to address a simple “yes” or “no” question, and the only possible motive for your refusal is cowardice.

            Please identify the false premise of my question.

            My question, again, is “do you believe that a business owner who religiously objects to race mixing should be free to refuse service to interracial couples?” Note that my question does not assume nor assert that race is equivalent to “depravity”; in fact, “depravity” is not at all relevant to my question. The only possible meaningful answers to my question are “yes” or “no”, and any other response is an intellectually dishonest attempt to avoid answering the question that can only be motivated by cowardice.

          • Amos Moses

            “Please identify the false premise of my question.”

            Again …… race and depravity, being a homosexual ….. have nothing to do with each other …. and to suggest it is racist ……

          • DTrevor

            You are again dishonestly misrepresenting my question.

            I am asking if a religious belief relating to race is subject to the same legal protection as religious belief relating to sexuality. I am thus comparing one religious belief to another religious belief. You are dishonestly claiming that I am equating the subjects of the two religious beliefs, when I am not — I am only asking if you and others believe that different religious beliefs merit the same legal protection.

            Such a question does not presume that race has anything to do either with depravity or with being a homosexual. You are dishonestly claiming that I am equating the three concepts because you are too much of a coward to answer “yes” or “no” to my simple question.

            Moreover, even were I suggesting that race, depravity and being a homosexual were equal concepts — and I am not — such a statement would not be equivalent to a declaration that one race is “superior” to another, and thus it would not be racist.

            You are thus lying about my position and you are lying about the implications of the position that you have fabricated, all to avoid answering a simple “yes” or “no” question.

          • Amos Moses

            “I am asking if a religious belief relating to race is subject to the same legal protection as religious belief relating to sexuality.”

            again …….. one has nothing to do with the other …….. it is a false premise ………. as it relates to christianity ………

          • DTrevor

            I did not claim that the two religious beliefs have anything to do with one another. I am asking only if the two religious beliefs are subject to the same legal protections.

            The only meaningful answers are “yes” or “no”. Your act of lying about my question does not constitute an answer. Instead, you seem to be attempting to avoid answering the question because doing so would force you either to admit that you believe that the law should protect religiously motivated racial discrimination or to admit that you believe that only some, and not all, religious beliefs should be protected by the law, which is Unconstitutional.

            If you were not a coward and a liar, you would answer either “yes” or “no” to my question. Instead, you are dishonestly accusing me of racism and lying about my question.

          • Amos Moses

            One is not a christian belief and never has been …. So false premise…..

          • DTrevor

            Your statement is problematic for two reasons.

            First, self-professed Christians including Bob Jones, Sr. and the still living David C. Pack have expressed belief against race-mixing.

            Second, I did not specify Christian belief. I defined the belief as “religious belief”. Are you not aware that religions other than Christianity exist in the United States of America, or do you believe that only Christian religious beliefs are subject to legal protection?

            I again observe that you have yet to answer “yes” or “no” to my simple question because, as I have noted, you are a coward.

          • Amos Moses

            not a question of who believes what ….. its a matter of what does scripture say ….. and it does not say what they say … so false premise ……….. who cares what they say if it is wrong ……

            “I did not specify Christian belief.”

            This is a christian forum ….. what anyone outside of that says is irrelevant ………..

          • DTrevor

            According to Bob Jones, Sr., racial segregation is scriptural.

            Moreover, you are continuing to make excuses for your complete inability to address a simple “yes” or “no” question.

          • Amos Moses

            Bobby is dead … So what … If what he believed was in error …. And you try to use that …. YOU are in error ….. And your premise is false …..

          • DTrevor

            That Mr. Jones, Sr. is deceased does not invalidate my question. Moreover, your dismissal of his belief as “error” does not actually show his belief to be error.

            Please identify the specific false premise of my question. As my question is only of whether or not you hold a specific belief, I cannot conceive of any premise that could be erroneous.

          • Amos Moses

            Error is error …….. and that invalidates your supposed question …. as i said …. scripture points to his error ………

          • DTrevor

            You have not identified any false premise in my question. You are attempting to avoid answering my question because you are a liar and a coward.

          • Amos Moses

            there is no “simple yes or no” answer …… unless you are a simpleton ………..

          • DTrevor

            I have asked whether you hold a specific belief. Either you hold that belief, and your answer is “yes” or you do not hold that belief and your answer is “no”. Thus, your claim that no such simple answer exists is a demonstrable lie. You continue to demonstrate your cowardice.

          • Amos Moses

            i hold to christian beliefs ….. you seem to be the expert ….. so you tell me …… you continue to demonstrate no knowledge of christianity …… why are you here ………..

          • DTrevor

            I am attempting to ascertain the intellectual honesty and consistency of people who believe that religious freedom requires that business owners be free to refuse service to same-sex couples. An intellectually honest person who holds that belief must also believe that business owners may also refuse to serve interracial couples on religious grounds. Few, however, are willing to admit such a belief. Most are as you are: too dishonest and too cowardly to admit either that they approve of religiously-motivated racial discrimination or that they are hypocrites who are seeking special and Unconstitutional protection for their religious beliefs only.

            You have still not addressed my question, because you are a coward.

          • Amos Moses

            “First, self-professed Christians including Bob Jones, Sr. and the still living David C. Pack have expressed belief against race-mixing.”

            So did Mohamed Ali …….. so what ………error is error …..

          • DTrevor

            Dismissing religious belief with which you disagree as “error” does not address my question.

            Do you believe that only your own religious beliefs, and not others, are subject to legal protection?

          • Amos Moses

            i am not here to address general “religious” belief …… only christian belief ….. and the belief you point to is error ………

          • DTrevor

            You again demonstrate that you are too much of a coward to address a simple question.

            Dismissing religious belief with which you disagree as “error” does not address my question.

            Do you believe that only your own religious beliefs, and not others — even if those beliefs are from purported Christians — are subject to legal protection?

          • Amos Moses

            you have no question that requires an answer …. you are a crybully ….. and your only complaint seems to be others do not bend to your will ………. cry elsewhere ……..

          • DTrevor

            Your baseless insult is not a response to my question. You are again demonstrating that you are a coward and a liar.

            Do you believe that only your own religious beliefs, and not others — even if those beliefs are from purported Christians — are subject to legal protection?

            Your continued refusal to answer a simple “yes” or “no” demonstrate that you are a coward. Your attempts to justify your refusal to provide a simple answer demonstrate that you are a liar.

          • Amos Moses

            “You again demonstrate that you are too much of a coward to address a simple question.”

            ad hominem ………..

            “Dismissing religious belief with which you disagree as “error” does not address my question.”

            if it is not christian then of course i dismiss it as error ….. it is …..

            “Do you believe that only your own religious beliefs, and not others — even if those beliefs are from purported Christians — are subject to legal protection?”

            read the first amendment ……….

          • DTrevor

            You have still provided no answer to my question. Instead, you have engaged in hypocrisy and irrelevant dismissals.

          • Amos Moses

            sorry ….. your little diatribe to the contrary …. you do not get to set the form of the answer just because YOU say so ……

          • DTrevor

            When I ask whether a person does or does not hold a specific belief, the only possibly meaningful answers are “yes”, indicating that they do hold the belief, or “no”, indicating that they do not hold the belief. Your attempts to justify your inability to provide one or the other as a response demonstrates only that you are dishonest.

    • Michael C

      The opposition to this Mississippi legislation is not about churches, ministers, clergy, etc. (who are already permitted to discriminate against whomever they please per the First Amendment).

      The problem with this unconstitutional law is that it targets gay people for discrimination in public accommodations (stores, restaurants, etc.)

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Finally!! A voice of sense in the USA!! USA should be the last nation on earth to bully the Christians for not-supporting homosexuality!! Westerners are utmost wise when they have Christian values!! It’s been really tragic and ridiculously evil that the white authorities and their mental slaves bullying the poor nations for refusing to submit to West’s homosexuality. What atrocity that has been!! Christian Americans are always heroes on earth!!

    • DTrevor

      I, for one, am pleased that Christians are rising up and announcing to non-believers that their non-belief will not be tolerated in the United States of America.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        USA has no freedom or justice if Christianity is absent. It’s ridiculous that the West demands the world to support abnormal depravity everywhere. Rich people turn into pervs – a classic example. They think they can order people around with anything just because they are rich and powerful. Men should stay busy working hard to earn bread instead of idling. Mental illness is a result of being well-fed and bored without having to have to work hard. White American Christians are the key for world’s freedom again. Read John chapter 3 to repent of your unbelief and get saved.

        • DTrevor

          Are you saying that Black American Christians cannot help restore the world’s freedom?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, both white and colored Christians. USA still leads the way.

          • DTrevor

            Are you unaware that the term “colored”, in reference to race, is archaic?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            How about the European descendants and Non-European descendants. No? Colored people got rescued and educated by the white Christians and together they defeated the bullies and the slave owners. It’s still that way today. It is totally wrong for the Western civilization to attack Christianity this century; Christless West only has blasphemy, infanticide, and abnormal immorality as its core values and nothing else. Enough of bored rich pervs’ atrocity on earth. People have rights to declare God’s truth and uphold sane morality. Stop putting the colored people and sexually immoral people in the same category calling them minorities. That way, prostitutes and inmates are minorities, too. You guys got totally lost by losing out the Christianity.

  • johndoe

    One group of people with consciences (Christians) versus a group of people who have no clue what a conscience is. Inevitably there are going to be some serious clashes.

    • DTrevor

      You have certainly posted a number of words.

  • Vince

    Oh, how cute, another left-wing cliche – “Get off the hate wagon.”

    Just repeating silly cliches, more like a parrot than humans.

  • DTrevor

    Do you believe that a business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be legally free to refuse service to interracial couples? The only possible meaningful answers to my question are “yes” or “no”.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The West should stop putting the colored people and sexually immoral people in the same
    category calling them minorities. If that’s the way, prostitutes and inmates and cannibals are minorities, too. Skin colors are nothing wrong, but sins are wrong. The West got totally lost by losing out their Christianity. Western Christians must battle on for upholding the Word of God and mankind’s freedom and human rights. Today’s West’s atrocity is forcing mankind abnormal immorality out of boredom on a failing planet. The West is never really sorry for anything in colonialism. Rich people need God’s instructions from the Church to behave like a human being.

    • DTrevor

      Your hypothesis that Christianity is required for human rights and freedom is interesting. Have you any actual evidence for your claim?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Yes, the West always had the Holy Bible in readable forms. The Holy Bible alone teaches mankind on the glorious one true God who is holy, His love for mankind, and the God-given freedom and equality and fairness for all humans. No other teachings and thoughts had such truth. Westerners were always educated by the Holy Bible until several decades ago, shaping a different kind of conscience and intelligence. That set apart the West from the Non-West for-ever. The West had only Roman/Greek porn stories as their original. China has something far better as its original. The Greeks sought the good and converted into Christianity in the earliest time.

        • DTrevor

          Your response does not constitute evidence in support of your claims.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You don’t know anything because you don’t read.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You wouldn’t know what the Europeans and Americans adopted from the Holy Bible unless you read the Holy Bible itself. All of world’s philosophies are mere merchants’ junks comparing to the Holy Bible. Christians created languages for illiterate peoples to start with, so everyone on earth could read the Holy Bible.

      • getstryker

        Let’s see: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin, Hussain, Assad . . .
        History is replete with those that murdered millions, squashed human rights and freedom based on their ‘Godless’ ideologies.
        There are NO morals among humans that are not God inspired.

        • DTrevor

          So, no, you have no evidence for Grace Kim Kwon’s claim.