Virginia Governor Vetoes Bill Prohibiting Punishment of Those Who Believe in Biblical Marriage

Photo Credit: Steve Bott

RICHMOND, Va. — The Democratic governor of Virginia has vetoed a religious freedom bill which would have prohibited the government from punishing those who believe in biblical marriage and conduct their public lives in accordance with that conviction.

“Although couched as a ‘religious freedom’ bill, this legislation is nothing more than an attempt to stigmatize,” Gov. Terry McAuliffe asserted in a statement on Thursday in rejecting S.B. 2314 and H.B. 2025.

“No person shall be required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage, or subject to any penalty by the Commonwealth, or its political subdivisions or representatives or agents, notwithstanding any other provision of law, solely on account of such person’s belief, speech, or action in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman,” the vetoed legislation read.

McAuliffe remarked that the federal and state Constitutions provide adequate protections, and that “any additional protections … that prefers one religious viewpoint—that marriage can only validly exist between a man and a woman—over all other viewpoints … is not only unconstitutional, it equates to discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.”

McAuliffe likewise opined that such laws are harmful to the economy.

“This legislation is also bad for business and creates roadblocks as we try to build the new Virginia economy. Businesses and job creators do not want to locate or do business in states that appear more concerned with demonizing people than with creating a strong business climate,” he stated.

But Christian groups believe that it is McAuliffe who is instead being discriminatory.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[O]nce again, Governor McAuliffe sided with the radical LGBT lobby and the ACLU in claiming that protecting the faiths of countless churches, religious schools and religious organizations amounts to discrimination and even going so far as to say it equates to ‘demonizing people,'” the Family Foundation of Virginia said in a statement. “The governor, of course, is all too comfortable with demonizing anyone who happens to disagree with him!”

“In reality, these bills would have ensured that a religious charity couldn’t be denied equal access to state benefits because of its belief in traditional marriage–something the governor is trying to do through his Executive Order 61— and that Virginia students who attend Christian universities or colleges like Liberty, Regent or Patrick Henry wouldn’t be denied access to Virginia’s tuition assistance grants because those schools have policies based on marriage between one man and one woman,” it explained.

As previously reported, the bills were introduced in light of Executive Order 61, which requires the state to only enter into government contracts with businesses and organizations that have anti-discrimination policies in place protecting homosexual and transgenders in “its employment practices, subcontracting practices, and delivery of goods or services.”

Some believe the order effectively bans Christian entities and faith-based charities from working with the state, since they do not enact such policies out of their conviction that they retain the religious right to decline orders for “gay weddings” and similar celebrations, as well as to hire and fire in accordance with the religious values and lifestyle standards of the company or non-profit organization.

McAuliffe, who set a record last week for the most vetoes in state history, also vetoed a bill last month that would have defunded the sex-centered giant Planned Parenthood.


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. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    No Bible = No truth = No freedom. The Western coasts and North-eastern coasts are out. Sad. Freedom is submission to God alone.

    • Johndoe

      Everyone in the USA are free….no bible needed.

      • Fang

        Everyone “are” free?

        What an illiterate ignoramus. You must’ve dropped out in 4th grade.

      • PastProdigal

        We’re free because of the Bible.

        Learn some real history.

        • Johndoe

          Not at all. The bible has zero to do with our freedom.

        • Bezukhov

          Really? As in your Bible is responsible for our Constitutional system here in the U.S. of A?

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            Read the old documents. read the Mayflower compact the beginning of our country. Oh that’s right atheist don’t read anything that would refute they are wrong. Our creator, divine providence etc. etc. they are all in early founding documents.

          • Bezukhov

            The word “Constitution”, as applied to a political document, appears nowhere in your Bible.

          • Balerion

            The same people whose descendants were responsible for the Salem witch trials?

  • Judy Zwyghuizen

    Another Reason I Love Tenneese! a Mariage should be Between one Man and one Woman as

    god Intended

    • RWH

      However, Tennessee is now required to recognize all marriages since the Supreme Court Decision. In about ten years, this all will be a non-issue.

      • Fang

        Right, and you’re fantasizing that you will live long enough to see pedophilia legalized. Judging from your photo, that’s not going to happen, so forget that.

        • RWH

          Did you learn how to treat people this way in Sunday School Class?

          • Fang

            Sure did! Telling the truth is a Christian virtue.

            I’ll do it again: Gays wish to legalize pedophilia. Many of them practice it already.

            I gather you don’t like truth-telling. Well, too bad.

          • Jason Todd

            He shoots! He scores!

          • Johndoe

            LMAO @ da blocker!

          • William of Glynn

            Christians tend to have a poor track record where virtue is concerned.

          • Jason Todd

            Non-sequitur.

          • This style 10/6

            There may be some gays who wish to legalise pedophilia and some who practise it. If caught they will get a long jail term and quite rightly.

            Pedophilia is an assault by an adult on a child who cannot give informed consent and will never be legalised. This is just a red herring cooked up by those who don’t like same sex marriage.

            If you don’t like it, don’t have one.

          • Jason Todd

            So then are you saying for the record when the push actually begins (as it will) to normalize pedophilia, at least in Canada, you will publicly oppose it?

          • This style 10/6

            There is no chance that Canadians would accept the assault on and abuse of children. Pedophilia is a horrible crime and will remain so.

            Look after your own back yard.

          • Jason Todd

            You didn’t answer my question. It’s really not difficult to say yes or no.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, obviously.

          • Johndoe

            Can you point me towards the place where you exacted this “truth” about gays wishing to legalize pedophilia?

          • RWH

            I am unaware of any gays pushing for pedophilia. All of the gay organizations I know of have it on record that they reject NAMBLA. If you know of organizations, cite them here, or be considered a liar.

          • Johndoe

            I’m on your side. I was calling him out for the ridiculous assertion.

          • RWH

            Well, I assert that Sunday School failed you if you can’t disagree with people without trying to inflict pain. The ends justify the means is not a Christian virtue.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If it’s so “true,” you should be able to back it up.

          • Chris

            “I’ll do it again: Gays wish to legalize pedophilia. Many of them practice it already.”

            It would seem from this that lying is a ‘Christian’ virtue too. Do you have any evidence?

        • Johndoe

          Too ridiculous for words!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          You have no evidence to support that slanderous accusation.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      You mean “God.”

    • Johndoe

      Same sex marriage is 100% legal in Tennessee!

    • Tangent002

      Were you home-schooled?

      • Jason Todd

        Really? Really?

        • Johndoe

          Blocker strikes again!

        • Tangent002

          Well, same-sex mariage [sic] is legal in Tennesse [sic].

          • Jason Todd

            1) That’s debatable.

            2) Your comment was meant as an insult in the way this female expressed herself. Not. Nice.

          • Tangent002

            I was ribbing her on the misspelled words and poor use of capital letters.

          • Jason Todd

            I know what you were doing. You don’t know the circumstance under which she wrote it.

            Still not nice.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You accusing people of being “not nice” has broken by irony meter.

          • Johndoe

            Not debatable at all, blocker boy

  • Stinger

    Obviously the term “biblical marriage” is employed by progressives to convey the impression that only Christians believe that marriage is between man and woman. The term “natural marriage” would be better. Even the Greek philosophers, who tolerated homosexuality to some extent, would have laughed at the notion of two men marrying. Plato referred to homosexuality in the same terms that Paul did – para phusin, “against nature.” There was never any homosexual “marriage” in any time and until recently. Were the ancient Chinese living in 600 BC believers in “biblical marriage”? Of course not. They just knew that marriage was between male and female.

    These degenerate politicians are just going along with the crowd. When the crowd starts insisting that man can marry his daughter – or his son – they’ll jump on that band wagon too. It’s not about morals, it’s about following the crowd.

    • InTheChurch

      Great post and I learned something today, thank you.
      God, in Leviticus 18, first 5 verses, actually acknowledges sexual sin and that includes homosexuality.

    • This style 10/6

      You forgot marrying animals, that’s where you people usually get to. That whole thing is just a crock.

      • Jason Todd

        No, it’s pedophilia. That’s where the LGBTQW community is going next. The seeds have already been planted.

    • Chris

      “There was never any homosexual “marriage” in any time and until recently.”

      Wrong actually. Same Sex Marriage was found in:
      Medieval China
      Ancient Egypt
      Ancient Mesopotamia
      Classical Rome
      Not to mention Amerindian and Aboriginal tribes.

  • SFBruce

    Good for Governor McAuliffe for recognizing the need for government to remain completely neutral when it comes to either favoring or disfavoring one religion over another. Virginians still have religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of association, and that’s true for believers of all strips, and nonbelievers alike.

    • Jason Todd

      The Governor is a hard-left liberal. The veto is in fact no surprise.

      And if people cannot object to same-sex marriage due to their faith, what is religious freedom?

      • William of Glynn

        No reason to object to it.

        • Jason Todd

          Is that a troll or are you serious?

      • Tangent002

        You as an individual are free to object all you want. Your business cannot discriminate, however.

        • Jason Todd

          False, of course. That’s not freedom.

          • Tangent002

            That’s the law. There are no rights that are entirely unfettered.

          • Jason Todd

            What is the law? What are you talking about?

          • Tangent002

            Virginia law forbids public sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Arlington county and Alexandria forbid it for private businesses as well.

          • Jason Todd

            You didn’t read the article, did You? It contained the text of the bill, which has nothing to do with employment whatsoever.

          • Tangent002

            The bill is superfluous, then. Virginia has no anti-discrimination protections for homosexuals, other than what I mentioned.

          • Jason Todd

            Why is religious freedom superfluous?

          • Tangent002

            What does the bill allow Virginians to do that they can’t do already?

          • Jason Todd

            Which is the typical BS response. If homosexuals would just take their business elsewhere instead of trying to punish someone because they said no there would be no need for this at all.

          • Tangent002

            Virginia businesses can refuse to serve same-sex weddings already.

          • Jason Todd

            Can’t make an argument, so you say the same thing twice? Awesome!

          • Tangent002

            Because you cannot read. No “religious freedom” bill is necessary to protect business owners from having to serve same-sex weddings.

          • This style 10/6

            You want freedom to discriminate which takes away a person’s freedom to purchase goods.

          • Jason Todd

            No, it doesn’t. You make it sound like there’s only one church, one photographer, one inn, etc.

            Which is why it’s the dumbest thing I have read from you by a country mile.

          • This style 10/6

            Where there is legislation forbidding discrimination on the grounds of sexuality then any business turning a person away on these grounds will have committed an offence. The person turned away has access to the law and may be compensated and the retailer may be fined.

            You may not like it but if it is the law you will either have to get used to or get the law changed. You should hurry up on this as millennials, those in their twenties, are 63% in favour of same sex marriage. This is from a study by the American Culture and Faith Institute, a conservative Christian organisation.

          • Jason Todd

            Where there is legislation forbidding discrimination on the grounds of sexuality then any business turning a person away on these grounds will have committed an offence.

            I defer you to what I said to William in response to this same comment.

            You may not like it but if it is the law you will either have to get used to or get the law changed. You should hurry up on this as millennials, those in their twenties, are 63% in favour of same sex marriage.

            1) I doubt it. I do not trust surveys.

            2) If this is indeed the case, it’s only because preachers have failed to teach and preach the Word of God, which is absolutely clear on homosexuality and marriage.

            3) Are you by any chance Canadian?

          • This style 10/6

            You probably only trust surveys if they agree with your preconceived notions. I think anyone can see that younger people tend to be more liberal. How do you think fashions and moral attitudes change?

            I am Canadian I am happy to say.

          • Jason Todd

            You probably only trust surveys if they agree with your preconceived notions.

            I do not trust them because you can get any response you wish depending on how you ask the question.

            I am Canadian I am happy to say.

            I wouldn’t be. Muslims kill homosexuals, and if M-103 is any indication, you may soon no longer be able to say that in the Great White North.

          • This style 10/6

            You are being ridiculous. Why do you think that Muslims are a ravening horde itching to kill us all. M 103 is a motion with no effect in law. In any case I am not gay.

          • Jason Todd

            You are being ridiculous.

            You are being a moron.

            Exhibit A: Why do you think that Muslims are a ravening horde itching to kill us all.

            M 103 is a motion with no effect in law.

            I did not say that.

            In any case I am not gay.

            I did not say you were. I was staying within the context of the actual subject matter.

          • William of Glynn

            There’s also more than one state. Pro-discrimination Christians have the absolute unfettered freedom to move from an anti-discrimination state and relocate their businesses in a pro-discrimination state.

          • Jason Todd

            That tells me you do not favor religious freedom or the concept of free enterprise. Am I correct?

          • William of Glynn

            You are incorrect … yet again. America is second to none in its rich and robust religious freedom, which Christians enjoy on a daily basis. As far as free enterprise, why would such devout Christian business owners want to stay in an anti-discrimination state when there are so many other states that reward anti-gay bigotry?

          • Jason Todd

            America is second to none in its rich and robust religious freedom, which Christians Muslims enjoy on a daily basis.

            Fixed it for you. Again.

            As far as free enterprise, why would such devout Christian business owners want to stay in an anti-discrimination state when there are so many other states that reward anti-gay bigotry?

            Obviously you are ignorant of the concept of free enterprise. Allow me to educate:

            A same-sex couple comes to a photographer, asking them to handle their “wedding.” The photographer says no. The couple then goes to another photographer, and they will do what the couple asks.

            In short, if someone will not offer, you go to their competition who will. Free enterprise.

            BTW, there’s no such thing as, “anti-g-y bigotry.” People have every right in the world to say no to something they do not agree with, and that includes sexually deviant behavior.

          • William of Glynn

            I don’t know what kind of weddings you’ve been to, but I’ve never attended one where people were having sex.

          • Jason Todd

            Snark isn’t an argument.

            Have a nice day.

          • William of Glynn

            Logic fail.

          • Jason Todd

            You have to use it first. Within the context of what I said. You failed to do that.

          • Chris

            Sounds like a really interesting wedding though. Maybe Jason can tell me where such weddings are held. Purely for research reasons of course. 🙂

          • Tangent002

            Do you favor the repeal of the CRA of 1964 for the sake of “religious freedom” and “free enterprise”?

          • Tangent002

            Or a business could simple lie and say they are all booked up.

      • SFBruce

        You can object all you like, so long as that objection doesn’t take the form of breaking the law. Your freedom ends when you think it includes infringing on mine.

        • Jason Todd

          Nobody is infringing on your freedoms.

          If you go to Kroger looking for Garden of Eatin’ blue tortilla chips, and they do not have any, you go to another grocery store, like Safeway, Publix or a Wal-Mart Supercenter, and see if they have them. If they do, you buy them there.

          But according to you, in your own logic, Kroger is infringing on your freedom by not selling the product, and, by God, they should be punished!

          Do you see how stupid that sounds?

          • SFBruce

            There is no law at either the state or federal level which requires Kroger to sell Garden of Eatin’ Blue Corn Tortilla Chips, or any other particular product. However, should Kroger’s decide to sell those chips, they have to sell them to the African-Americans who want them, because it’s the right thing and the law demands it. This goes for all public accommodation owners, even the ones who sincerely believe the races should be separate. Before you call me stupid, you might want to be sure you understand what I’ve said. You’re trying to refute an argument I never made.

          • Jason Todd

            There is no law at either the state or federal level which requires Kroger to sell Garden of Eatin’ Blue Corn Tortilla Chips, or any other particular product.

            Same goes for photographers, etc.

            Cards on the table: If a business owner denies you service because you are a homosexual, why can’t you be content to go somewhere else?

          • SFBruce

            Because it’s not fair, that’s why. Do you think the African-American should just go down the street, if Kroger doesn’t want to sell her those corn chips? And what if every grocery store in that area decides they just don’t want to do business with African-Americans because of their sincerely held beliefs? Is that fair?

            And the same doesn’t go for photographers. You’re still not understanding something: there is no law requiring public accommodations to offer specific products and/or services. There are federal laws, however, which forbid public accommodations who sell a product or provide a service to the general population from denying those same products and services to someone on account of their race or religion, among other categories. All the states have similar laws, but they vary in terms of the protected categories. Virginia has no state wide protections for the LGBT population in private employment or public accommodations. Businesses all across Virginia are already perfectly free to show LGBT people the door, if that’s what they want. Even if you think that there’s something noble in telling a gay person their money is too dirty for you, the state of Virginia won’t stand in your way. This bill was unnecessary and vindictive, and I’m glad the governor vetoed it.

          • Jason Todd

            You’re still not understanding something

            No. That would be you.

            I have said this time and time again, and it doesn’t seem to register: People who think they should be treated any more than they already are as citizens of the United States of America solely and specifically because of their sexual behavior are in fact entitled to exactly two things.

            Jack and Squat.

            And Jack just left town.

            (And before you say it: Religion is in the Constitution. Sexual behavior is not. Goodbye, strawman.)

          • SFBruce

            You’re responding to my comment, but it’s hard to follow, since I don’t see its relevance to what I said. But I’ll try to comment on the arguments I think you’re trying to make.

            1. On the one hand you seem to be saying something like, “Gay people are already treated like every else, so stop whining.” I disagree. So long as a same sex couple can get married on Saturday, and then fired from their job on Monday, we don’t have the same rights as most other Americans.

            2. On the other hand, perhaps you’re saying, “Gay people have fewer rights than everyone else because they deserve fewer rights.” To believe this, you have to accept long discredited views about sexual orientation.

            3. Finally, perhaps you’re arguing that religious freedom trumps everything else. This is the easiest argument to shut down, since if it were true, one could use it as a defense against absolutely anything.

          • Jason Todd

            You’re responding to my comment, but it’s hard to follow,

            No, it’s not. If you need it explained to you, I am certain an 8-year-old can do it.

          • SFBruce

            Instead of responding in any intelligent way to my comment, you resort to a personal attack, demonstrating you’re unable to do the former. You’ll never change anyone’s mind with those tactics.

          • Jason Todd

            For one thing, I am not here to change minds. Nothing I say will change your mind, and vice versa. No, I am here to inform the like minded and destroy the morally vacant.

            You seem to believe your sexual behavior entitles you to something more than what you already have. I am telling you that is absolutely false. I am also aware of how the goalposts are being continuously moved to include such things as public nudity and teaching homosexuality to kindergarten-age children, all under the name of civil rights and equality. Soon, it will include the sexual abuse of children.

            No, the ultimate goal is creating a moral and sexual anarchy. And there’s nothing equal or civil about it. And anyone who says this is not the endgame is either ignorant or a liar.

            I am sure you are going to say you don’t understand what I just said. That will make you a liar, and you will be called one if and when you say it.

    • PastProdigal

      He favors atheism and islamism over Christianity.

      But that is okay with you.

      • SFBruce

        What is it in this article or my comments which lead you to that conclusion? What I’ve said is the state must remain utterly neutral in matters of faith, neither favoring nor disfavoring one religion over another.

    • Audiophile

      What does “believers of all strips” mean? Are you learning English?

      • SFBruce

        I made a typo, which I just corrected. But unless you’re the one just learning English, I think you probably knew that.

  • William of Glynn

    In 1967, before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining state bans on interracial opposite-sex marriage, the definition of marriage in some states was the union of one white man and one white woman, or the union of one black man and one black woman.

    • Jason Todd

      Not only a false comparison, but also irrelevant.

      You read the text of the bill. What was your problem with it?

      • William of Glynn

        The comparison is both valid and relevant.

        Christians in the United States already enjoy a rich and robust religious freedom. Gov. McAuliffe accurately describes the bill in question as a license to discriminate. There is nothing Christian about it.

        • Jason Todd

          Christians Muslims in the United States already enjoy a rich and robust religious freedom.

          Fixed it for you.

          Gov. McAuliffe accurately describes the bill in question as a license to discriminate.

          People discriminate all the time.

          But this isn’t about discrimination. It’s about true religious freedom, which includes the right to say no.

          • William of Glynn

            “True religious freedom” also means not having to do your job.

          • Jason Todd

            Huh?

          • Johndoe

            Typical reply from da blocker

          • William of Glynn

            Don’t play dumb. Or … are you playing?

          • Jason Todd

            Your comment makes no sense. it’s missing something called coherence.

          • William of Glynn

            Something’s missing all right.

          • Jason Todd

            Look! A troll!

            FAIL

          • Tangent002

            How do Muslims have more religious freedom than Christians in America?

          • Jason Todd

            Um…uh….have you been reading the internet newsites at all?

          • Tangent002

            I try to stay away from InfoWars and StormFront. Thanks.

          • Jason Todd

            I do not read those either.

            (Troll FAIL)

            Surely you could not have missed the story posted at this very website about the Texas school that provided a prayer room for Muslims.

          • Tangent002

            That same room is available for Christians.

          • Jason Todd

            1) That’s not why the room was provided

            2) There is no record of Christians using the room to pray

            3) If there was, we would know about it because the FFRF would be screaming and hollering about the church and state separation myth to stop it.

            FAIL

          • Tangent002

            To which story are you referring?

            This one? “Texas Wesleyan University Offers Prayer Room for Muslim Students”

          • Jason Todd

            No.

            “Texas High School Makes Room Available for Muslim Students to Hold Friday Prayers”

            Thanks for bringing the other to my attention, though.

          • Tangent002

            District administration has said the room is available to anyone.

          • Jason Todd

            Meaningless unless others are. No proof that is the case. Still.

          • Tangent002

            You mean in order to be ‘fair’ the school should have to set aside another room for Christians? Why can’t they all use the same room if it is otherwise available?

          • Jason Todd

            Don’t be so obtuse. You know what I mean, and what the “administration” meant.

          • Tangent002

            No, what do you mean? How is this prayer room unfair to Christian students?

          • Jason Todd

            Quit. Playing. Games. You are trying my patience.

          • Johndoe

            Proof? You can’t handle the proof!

          • james blue

            Should a business be allowed to refuse goods and services to Christians if the owner doesn’t agree with our faith?

            Should a landlord be allowed to refuse to rent to Christians if he disagrees with our faith?

            Should a non Christian county clerk be allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses to Christians?

            Not what the law IS, what you think it SHOULD be

          • Ambulance Chaser

            For some reason, when Da Blocker answers that question, what the law is and what the law should be are always exactly the same. Even if he has to torture, twist, and contort the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence to get there.

          • james blue

            Who is “Da Blocker”?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Jason Todd. He loves to block people so some of us are calling him Da Blocker.

          • james blue

            Ah, maybe he blocked me and that’s why he’s not answering the question.

            Oh well if he doesn’t want to experience the magnificence and privilege of my ramblings that’s his loss 😉

  • PastProdigal

    McAuliffe is an anti-Christian bigot, so what else can be expected from him? Until we band together to elect leaders at all levels who have the desire to return to a moral base and common sense legislation, we will continue to see this kind of insanity.

  • Tangent002

    What do supporters of this bill want to do that they can’t do today?

    • 0pus

      Upset dimwitted nerdy SJWs.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      It’s a valid quest. One you have yet to get a sufficient answer to.

  • Eddie frOly

    So how did these constitutional freedoms work out for sweet cakes by Melissa?

    • Johndoe

      There’s no constitutional freedom to discriminate in business.

      • Eddie frOly

        Even businesses have a right to refuse service to whom they wish. But they hadn’t been refusing service to gays they refused to participate in a single event. A person does not give up their God given rights when they open a business. Why is that so damn hard to understand. Refusing to associate with someone or provide them with a service is not the same as discrimination.

        • Tangent002

          Businesses haven’t had that right since the CRA of 1964.

        • Michael C

          Refusing to associate with someone or provide them with a service is not the same as discrimination.

          Ummmm… That’s the definition of discrimination.

          Even businesses have a right to refuse service to whom they wish.

          Well, no. That’s not in the Constitution. If it were, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be unconstitutional. Nondiscrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been found by the courts to be constitutional for over fifty years now.

          But they hadn’t been refusing service to gays they refused to participate in a single event.

          The courts have not accepted this argument. A business would never be permitted to deny products or services because they don’t want to “participate” in an interfaith wedding. That’s discrimination on the basis of religion and it’s illegal. Businesses can’t say “we serve people of all faiths” but then refuse to sell one of their products because they disagree with a particular religious “event”.

          A person does not give up their God given rights when they open a business.

          Of course they don’t. Nobody’s said otherwise. A business owner like a baker or a florist is free to decide which products and services they’re willing to serve to the general public. If there is a product or service that they’d be unwilling to provide everyone equally, they’re under no obligation to offer it. See? Religious freedom.

          • Jason Todd

            Ummmm… That’s the definition of discrimination.

            So what do you call someone being forced to associate with a person or people with whom they disagree?

            Of course they don’t. Nobody’s said otherwise.

            Then leave them alone instead of punishing them for doing so.

          • Michael C

            So what do you call someone being forced to associate with a person or people with whom they disagree?

            Life. I call that life.

            Businesses are often not permitted to refuse to “associate” with people “with whom they disagree.”

            I call that “civil rights laws.”

            You apparently disagree with civil rights legislation. That’s cool. I just happen to disagree with you.

          • Jason Todd

            Homosexuality is not and has never been a “right,” let alone a “civil right.”

            You merely say it because it’s self-serving, but not because it has any basis in reality.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Homosexuality is not and has never been a “right,” let alone a “civil right.””

            That’s somewhat of a “red herring.”. We’re not arguing that any sort of sexual orientation is a “right”, we’re saying people shouldn’t be discriminated against because of sexual orientation.

        • Johndoe

          Nobody asked them to participate in anything. They were asked to provide the same service as they do for everyone else.

    • William of Glynn

      They actually made a tidy profit from pro-discrimination Christians donating to their GoFundMe page.

      • Eddie frOly

        Actually gofundme pulled their page and kept the funds before they made the amount needed for the fine. Try again.

        • William of Glynn

          You are correct and I stand corrected. The Kleins made a tidy profit from pro-discrimination Christians donating to the anti-gay, pro-discrimination site Continue to Give, raising well over $300,000.

  • jmk

    These comments make me feel dirty. You are a bunch of nut jobs.

    • 0pus

      Exactly. Welcome to the homosexual subculture. They spread disease physically and spread hate on the web. Makes you wonder how they can stand being around each other. You’d think occasionally they would crave the company of some decent and respectable human beings.

      • Jason Todd

        What really makes me angry about all of this is the fact after Christians reached out to the LGBTQW community in the wake of the Orlando nightclub massacre, and this is what they are getting in return. No respect for boundaries whatsoever; it’s all about punishing Christians because they had the audacity to say no.

        • Tangent002

          You expected gay folks to quit getting married because y’all were nice to them after the Orlando shooting? Really?

          • Jason Todd

            That’s not what I said. Read it again, slowly.

      • Chris

        “They spread disease physically,,,”

        So do most humans. Look up the history of disease sometimes.

        “…and spread hate on the web.”

        Well the ones promoting hatred on this site are fundie Christians.

        “You’d think
        occasionally they would crave the company of some decent and respectable
        human beings.”

        Who would they be then?

  • Eddie frOly

    I’m as conservative and Christian as it gets but you must address this question from two sides. First you have to realise that as Americans the Constitution applies to us all (gay and straight alike) equally so under those circumstances gay marriage or something similar should be “allowed”. But as a Christian who’s studied this subject in great detail I can say that Christians can’t support it Biblically, but that doesn’t mean you should cast them out of your life either. At the same time the Constitution allows for freedom of association meaning we cannot be forced by the government to associate with anyone with which we disagree or choose to other wise not do business. In other words yes gays can marry no they should not be able to force people to participate who disagree with them and the government should not be able to punish said people for not doing said business either.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      You can’t be forced to associate with anyone. You can, however, be forced to offer the same services to gays that you offer to straights. Many states (not including Virginia) have such laws and none have been struck down yet, despite many conservatives’ attempts to do so.

      • Eddie frOly

        Yes but in their ruling in favour of Home Depot the SCOTUS found that a business owner cannot be forced to leave their beliefs at home and that the government cannot make a person violate their sacredly help beliefs just for any reason other than public safety or where there is a clear violation of someone elses rights which this is not. Which this is not marriage being a choice is like many other choices​… Let me ask you this if the shoe was on the other foot should the Christian couple be able to force a gay baker to make them a “straight pride” wedding cake, and why don’t any of these people attack muslims like this because they damn sure wouldn’t bake your cake!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          First, let me thank you for being one of the few on this site who are in its target audience and also interested in having an honest discussion. That’s extremely appreciated. On to your points:

          “Yes but in their ruling in favour of Home Depot the SCOTUS found that…”

          I’m sorry, I looked but I can’t find a SCOTUS case to which Home Depot is a party.

          “Let me ask you this if the shoe was on the other foot should the Christian couple be able to force a gay baker to make them a “straight pride” wedding cake”

          That’s not analogous. There was no political message on any cake involved in any non discrimination law matter. Analogous would be a (rather ludicrous) hypothetical of a gay-owned bakery that refused to cater a straight wedding, which would be illegal. And it wouldn’t matter why the gay owner rs disliked straight people.

          “and why don’t any of these people attack muslims like this because they damn sure wouldn’t bake your cake!”

          Apparently they would, which is why the issue has never come up (and by extension why nobody is attacking Muslims over it).

  • Reason2012

    McAuliffe remarked that the federal and state Constitutions provide adequate protections

    That’s false. People have had their lives destroyed because although they have no problem serving those who announce they’re into homosexuality, they refused to bow down to promote the ACT of a same-gender wedding no matter who makes the request: a person into homosexuality or not.

    “Although couched as a ‘religious freedom’ bill, this legislation is nothing more than an attempt to stigmatize,”

    No, same-gender marriage was designed to stigmatize and criminalize Christian beliefs one piece at a time and promote homosexual behavior as normal to everyone else’s kids and grandkids in schools.

    In the end God will judge us all for our actions. Choose now which side of that judgment you wish to be on – the side of grace: believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God – the Christ – crying out for His mercy and grace. Or face judgment for our lifetime of sinning because we refuse to be forgiven for it and refuse to stop sinning.
    .
    John 3:14-21 “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: [on the cross] That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
    He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
    And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved
    [exposed] But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

    • William of Glynn

      No one is forced to cater weddings. If you don’t want to cater weddings, don’t advertise that you offer this service to the public.

      • Tangent002

        In Virginia, there are no anti-discrimination protections for homosexuals. Businesses can already pretty much do what they want.

      • Reason2012

        Nowhere can they be forced to support all acts of supposed marriage.
        They can deny promoting polygamy “marriages”,
        They can deny promoting adulterous marriages,
        They can deny promoting marriage with a 18 year old if they think that’s too young,
        They can deny promoting marriage with a 17 year old if they think that’s too young. in spite of their state laws saying it’s legal.
        The only discrimination here is demanding Christians support anti-Christian ACTS and destroying their lives if they don’t.

        • Tangent002

          Selling someone a cake is not “support”.

        • William of Glynn

          The Christian business owners who make the conscious and deliberate decision to discriminate against gay couples can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The fact that the majority of Christian business owners have no problem treating gay couples equally with straight couples is proof that there is nothing anti-Christian about same-sex marriage.

    • Tangent002

      The Virginia state constitution and statues have no protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Virginia businesses are free to refuse to serve gays just for being homosexual.

      • Reason2012

        They have no problem serving those into homosexuality – so it’s a lie that they discriminate. Even if a normal person makes the request to promote a same-gender wedding, the request would be denied. No one can be forced to support ACTS with their businesses that they find offensive.

        • Tangent002

          It depends on the state. A business in Colorado cannot refuse to serve a same-sex wedding. In Virginia, a business can.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s like he’s not even listening.

  • Reason2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • Tangent002

      Cases of people claiming to have been “cured” of homosexuality are anecdotal only. There has never been a single medically documented case of a fully-homosexual person being “turned” fully-heterosexual.

      The vast majority of anecdotes I have read are folks given strategies to ignore their same-sex attraction and live lives of celibacy.

      • Amos Moses

        “There has never been a single medically documented case of a fully-homosexual person ……… ”

        if you had stopped there it would have been the truth ……………

        • Ambulance Chaser

          False. “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men,” Science, 1991.

          • Amos Moses

            “LeVay’s finding was widely reported in the media. LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover’s death from AIDS.”

            again …. more pseudo-science and bias ….. looked at a Rorschach and saw what he wanted to see to justify himself and his sin …… more baloney ……….

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You said it wasn’t reported in medical journals. It was.

            (Also, is be remiss if I didn’t point out that nothing you wrote discredits the findings.)

          • Amos Moses

            “You said it wasn’t reported in medical journals. ”

            WHERE …………..

          • ShemSilber

            Ambulance Chaser seems to be one of those deadly combinations: (1) an educated fool otherwise known as a lawyer and (2) an unbeliever. I’d sooner go talk to a horse or a cow, and get better answers, too, not so?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Nope, you wouldn’t. Cows don’t talk.

            If you want to find out what I have to say, you should probably just ask me.

          • ShemSilber

            OK, friend, now that I’ve got your goat, you can have it back again.

            Two professions (out of many) that should work themselves out of job are lawyers and psychiatrists, but instead of that, produce respectively more litigation and more insanity, and sometimes I think they work in collusion.

            Is there any place where one could buy collusion insurance?

            It may be that we will meet in the next age, how do I know? We’ll have one-world government under the Master Yahushua, the one Christians call “Lord Jesus,” our soon-coming King, but we will both be highly reformed from what we are now, if so.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m going to respond to the only part of that that is coherent:

            No, we don’t create unnecessary litigation. If you think that, you’ve never been involved in a lawsuit. In fact, my firms retainer specifies that we will DISCHARGE you if you’re unreasonably litigious. This morning we talked a client out of filing a counterclaim because we want the whole case over faster.

          • ShemSilber

            Good for you, sir. That appears to be a cut above the lawyers with whom I’ve had to deal.

          • Amos Moses

            FYI …. BIASED findings are ALREADY discredited …………. ON THEIR FACE ……. Prima facie evidence of falsity is BIAS ………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “i have my conclusion …. now let me see if i can manufacture evidence to prove it” ….. NOT SCIENCE …”

            Right, except LaVey didn’t do that and you have no evidence that he did. All you know is that he’s gay and his partner died. That’s ALL.

            Jane Goodall likes chimps. She has an affinity for them. Does that mean that all her research is therefore null and void?

          • Amos Moses

            his open PUBLIC admission is enough to discredit his findings …

            i.e. …..”LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover’s death from AIDS.”

          • Amos Moses

            J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

            todays story ……….. sorry charlie ….. all you have is PSEUDO-SCIENCE ………………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            A) That’s not what Armstrong’s paper concluded. It’s actually a lot more complicated than that.
            B) Armstrong says nothing about this study. How do you know it’s not one of the 1%?
            C) Why should I believe Armstrong at all? You don’t trust things published in scientific journals.

            “his open PUBLIC admission is enough to discredit his findings …
            i.e. …..”LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover’s death from AIDS.”

            No, it isn’t, because nothing about being gay has anything to do with whether your findings are correct. YOU’RE biased. Can I summarily dismiss everything you say? If a research oncologist has cancer, do his findings automatically become wrong? If a Christian theologian writes a treatise about the Bible, is everything he says immediately wrong?

          • Amos Moses

            “Armstrong says nothing about this study. How do you know it’s not one of the 1%?”

            but there are NUMEROUS other studies of science journals …… and i did not say it included this study ….. but this study is flawed from inception for the reasons i have cited …… believe what you want to believe ….. you do anyway ………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, is it flawed? How? Be specific. Cite page numbers.

            Don’t tell me “because the author is gay.” Do the work.

            Shouting “bias” is an irrelevant ad hominem. I’ve explained why but you chose to do ignore me.

          • Amos Moses

            “Be specific. Cite page numbers.”

            starts at the beginning and goes until the end ….. the ENTIRE study is BIASED and FLAWED by the authors PUBLIC ADMISSION of WHY he did the study and the BASIS of his bias …………. how hard is that to understand ……….

            i do not expect a study on slavery to be against slavery by a slave owner ….. it is a pointless exercise ……. why do you think the standard changes for homosexuals trying to prove the benefits or whatever of being a homosexual with science …… it is equally pointless ….. they will see what they WANT to see and any other outcome was not even considered …..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So let me get this straight: I can submit a rebuttal to ANY scientific article, on any topic, to any peer-reviewed journal in America, and all I have to write in that rebuttal is a one-sentence comment about the first author’s “bias?” And that sentence will be sufficient to rebut the totality of the first article?

            How do you account for the fact that approximately ZERO articles published every year follow this format?

          • Amos Moses

            strawman argument …… he stated his bias PUBLICLY ……….. that is sufficient to disregard his findings …..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So you’re only biased if you state it publicly?

          • Amos Moses

            nope ….. but he did ……….

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            You post the same studies every time you post this crap. SCIENCE DENIER. GOD SAYS THIS IS YOUR SNA/CHROMOSOMES AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE. I don’t care what anyone else says. BUT Homos. hate Gods word because it tells them they are sinning in a Homo. relationship.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’ve never posted this article before but so what if I did?

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            Funny that you speak of Science since you are a science denier.
            YOUR DNA/Chromosomes tell you what sex you REALLY are. Your mental disease tells you something different.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So there’s no biological component to homosexuality? Please cite your evidence.

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            In the 60’s homosexuality WAS deemed to be a mental disorder. Society has changed the minds of those who want to be something they can never be. SECULAR SOCIETY WITH THE DEVIL HAS TRIED TO FORCE YOUR MENTAL DISEASE ON THE REST OF US. GOD SAYS NO. In the end you will stand before him even if you do not believe in him and you will be judged for your sins.
            When you look in your pants and you have a penis and your partner has how can you delude yourself that one of you is a WOMAN???
            DNA/Chromosomes tell you differently. The answer is you BOTH HAVE A MENTAL DISEASE.

          • BraveNewWhirled

            If this is true, is it cause or effect? If it is a “natural” thing, then shouldn’t it naturally be a mutation in decline? Everybody knows that homosexuals cannot reproduce biologically. They can only reproduce through force, intimidation, and propaganda.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Ummm, no, they produce through in vitro or surrogacy. I don’t know where you get the idea that gay people are all infertile.

          • Combi

            Survival of the fittest just went out the window then.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Since when? Why?

          • Combi

            According Braves comment, if homosexuality grew in great number and they wished to have children, they would have to have surrogate children, this would then involve them ‘choosing’ which female to reproduce their off spring, perhaps producing designer babies and then bringing them up in the gay community and indoctrinating them into gay people. Then in the future if evolution is to be believed, eventually women would slowly devolve, except for those who are lesbians, who of course being gay may never have a gay man’s child, even as a surrogate.

            Given enough time genders would disappear and everyone would be the same and children would be born in labs, designed by the persons who want them. And man would cry ‘I have become a God because i have created life, the way I see fit and to fit my purpose.’

          • Ambulance Chaser

            OK, none of that is true.

            A) You can’t cause a person to be gay.

            B) What do you mean “women would devolve?” And why?

            C) Why would genders disappear?

            You don’t have any connecting tissue between your facts and your outcomes.

          • Combi

            Im simply speculating, using the ‘theory’ of evolution and survival of the fittest as a base. Looking into what ‘could’ happen hundreds of years in the future. Perhaps millions.

            1- You can cause a person to be gay, by teaching children as young as five that gay is okay, thus making them more susceptible to try gay sex as they grow older.

            2- Women would not be needed in the future, all children would be ‘created’ in test tubes.

            3- The definition of gender to describe biological sex is disappearing. So much so that you can be gender neutral ‘if you feel Ike it’.

            The connecting tissue you ascribe to is written all over the faces of the people who are anti-christian, anti-biblical people who allow men to use girls rest rooms. Those who beat a woman till they are dead just because she was raped. The Christians who have stood by and watched America fall apart and done nothing.

            I didn’t comment with facts, i was giving you a picture of a possible future.

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            hey dummy are you a science denier?? Your DNA/Chromosomes can never be altered no matter what hormone you take. Now a good Physic doctor might help you.

      • Florenca Mcdowell

        Homosexuality and trans genderism are mental disorders. Hence they need to be reprogramed from the programing they received in believing they are not the sex they were born. You can do surgery, TUCKING NOT REMOVING OF PENIS. you can take hormones BUT YOU CAN NEVER CHANGE YOUR DNA OR CHROMOSOMES. THAT IS PURE SCIENCE.
        ARE YOU A SCIENCE DENIER????

    • King Lust

      I’ve seen you on Disqus for a few years now, copying/pasting the same nonsense….so that in and of itself says you are trolling and don’t believe what you say.

      So realistic question, can you see a future for yourself where your obsession with homosexuality fades and you move on to your next obsession?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        He copypastas that once every week or two. It’s weird, and stupid, but the part that really gets me is that he’s been challenged on it multiple times by multiple people and he never defends it.

        Where are the neurological journal articles about ex gays? Show us some peer reviewed evidence!

        • Combi

          Don’t know if it helps but there is a film called I am Michael about a gay man who goes straight.

    • Florenca Mcdowell

      AMEN, THIS IS WHY THEY HATE THE BIBLE. It tells Gods thought and its NOT what they want to do. sad in the end if they don’t commit suicide before God takes them they will remain unhappy for a long time.

  • BraveNewWhirled

    Typical authoritarianism: You WILL believe THIS way and should you not, you shall suffer the WRATH of the STATE. Thou shalt worship the State thy god and the State only shalt thou worship. This needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

  • ShemSilber

    Does Biblical marriage only mean one man and one woman? How about the patriarchs of whom we have record that they had more than one wife, such as Abraham and Jacob? Without Jacobs 4 wives, for example, we wouldn’t have the 12 tribes of Israel. If you study the list of the messianic line in Matthew 1, for example, there are several names there of men who had plural wives, like David, who had 18. Solomon was never reprimanded because of his many wives (700 of them, and 300 concubines), but for following his heathen wives into idolatry. Ruth, of the messianic line, was not the first wife of Boaz. He had 30 each of sons and daughters, and who knows how many wives he had, with whom Yahuwah blessed him as a judge of Israel.

    Isaiah 4 shows that there will be restoration of plural marriage, which will come about in the reign of the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus). He has blessed it in the past, and He will continue to bless it in the future, as long as it is done according to His Torah, in Yahushua’s Name, omein.

  • Fundamentalist Christians really need to understand that this is a secular nation. Our Constitution is a secular document and the 1st Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .”

    The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause makes the Establishment Clause applicable to all states.

    What this means is that since same gender marriage is not forbidden in the Constitution (and it should not be because it is none of our government’s business), and since our nation cannot be run according to your Bible, then everyone has the right to marry whomever he loves.

    Why must fundamentalists try to micromanage the lives of others? You want government to stay our of your personal business, then Christians should stay out of the lives of others. What possible harm does it do you if a man or a woman marry someone of the same gender?

    In reality (follow the logic), that government cannot make laws respecting any religion is the very reason all religions can thrive in this nation of the free!

    If you need to know why this is true, then Google and read, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” and “Founders.archives.” It was written by Jefferson and is the document from which the Establishment Clause was crafted. It is also in the Virginia Constitution.

    This, too, is the document to which many judges refer when interpreting the intent of the Establishment Clause.

    • Shalom

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Rights vs. Rights is eventually unavoidable in government based upon man-made capricious Enlightenment rights rather than immutable Biblical responsibilities. And the “rights” of Christians will invariably be on the losing end of such government:

    “[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1, 7)

    “A familiar proverb declares, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” America’s road to “hell” has been paved with rights, including:

    Natural rights
    Human rights
    Civil rights
    Political rights
    Religious rights (including the right for all non-Christian religions to proliferate)
    Educational rights
    Women’s rights (including the right to murder one’s unborn baby)
    Children’s rights
    Health care rights
    Welfare rights
    Homosexual rights
    Transgender rights

    “And this is the short list…. Because the framers failed to expressly establish the Constitution on Biblical ethics, the Ninth Amendment was inevitably interpreted to include the above list, as well as other Biblical infractions.

    “The latest to come from the rights culture created by the framers is the right of young men who claim to be transgender to share locker rooms, bathrooms, and even showers with girls in our public schools….”

    For more, see blog article “America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Blog and search on title.

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Grundune

      How about your right to make a fool out of yourself? Abolish the U.S. Constitution? Seriously, Ted, that’s nuts. Generations of Americans have lived and died under the freedom afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Do you honestly thing you can convince enough people to get it thrown out? Good luck.

    • Grundune is a Mormon who rejects the Christ of the Bible and the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11; John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 John 1:7-11; etc.) and whose “Doctrine and Covenants” demand he defend the Constitution as divinely inspired (D&C 101:80, etc.), much the same as with the “Book of Mormon.” He knows if the Constitution is exposed for the biblically seditious document it is, that the entire Mormon house of cards comes tumbling down.

      Grundune, will, of course, deny that any of this (except that he’s a Mormon) applies to him. I’ll let you the reader determine from his Mormonism and posts whether this is true or not.

      But the real tragedy is that many Christians are more inclined to follow “Doctrine
      and Covenants” than they are the Bible when it comes to the Constitution.

    • Grundune

      How about your right to make a fool out of yourself? Abolish the U.S.
      Constitution? Seriously, Ted, that’s nuts. Generations of Americans
      have lived and died under the freedom afforded by the U.S. Constitution.
      Do you honestly thing you can convince enough people to get it thrown
      out? Good luck.

  • Chet

    Typical leftist liberal decision, anti God anti Christ and anti those who choose to follow God’s Word, the Holy Bible…

  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    Governor McAuliffe is a Clinton asset, so this is not surprising.

  • Combi

    After reading this i get the impression that pretty soon Christianity would become a criminal offence and practicing it will result in beatings, arrest etc. That would make it the same as in Muslim countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. You know there are nearly 5000 mosques in America, i cant think of any in the countries I’ve mentioned. I’ve heard that they spend over 150 million dollars every three days to spread Islam. That they want to build a mosque on ground zero (a sign of victory), and that they consider the planet as one big mosque. I wonder if my children will be allowed to be openly Christian, i really do.

  • Chondra

    So um, discrimination is a one way street huh?
    Typical libtard thought process.