Washington Florist Told She Must Service ‘Gay Weddings’ Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court

RICHLAND, Wash. — A Washington florist who has been accused of discrimination for declining a regular customer’s request that she create floral arrangements for his same-sex ceremony is taking her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Barronelle Stuzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington had provided a referral to the customer instead.

“Barronelle is an artist with a conscience who cannot separate her artistic creativity from her soul. Her objection is not to any person or group with a particular sexual orientation, but to creating expression that celebrates a view of marriage that directly contradicts her faith,” the petition, filed on Friday by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), reads.

It contends that the floral arrangements—the colors and types, and the various meanings or memories they represent—are forms of speech that can entangle the florist in personally being involved in creating designs that express or symbolize love between two men in violation of her faith.

“Barronelle’s custom wedding designs are artistic expression protected by the First Amendment as pure speech. At a highly simplistic level, red roses communicate love and red poinsettias Christmas. So it should come as no surprise that flowers may speak messages,” the filing outlines. “[I]ndeed, the Victorians took this ‘language of flowers’ to a new level by popularizing dozens of books on the coded meanings of flowers and crafting bouquets to send simple messages to one another.”

“Barronelle’s custom wedding designs do far more by expressing, in abstract form, her vision of the couple’s  unique personalities, style, and what they want their ceremony to be, thereby setting the tone for the wedding celebration,” it states.

“Through her distinctive floral designs, Barronelle celebrates the couple’s particular union, which requires not only that she invest herself creatively and emotionally in their wedding ceremony, but also that she dedicate herself artistically to memorializing and formalizing it in three-dimensional form.”

As previously reported, in 2012, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson leveled Stutzman with a lawsuit as he claimed that she violated the law by declining to decorate a same-sex “wedding” and rather provided a referral.

  • Connect with Christian News

Stutzman had been approached by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the floral arrangements for his then-upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt.

“We had gone to Arlene’s for many years and enjoyed her service. She did a great job for us, so it was just natural for us to go there to have her do our flowers,” Freed told KUOW radio.

Stutzman stated that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event, but referred him to three other florists that could be of assistance.

“I just took his hands and said, ‘I’m sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told reporters.

But after Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue—both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments.

“It blew way out of proportion,” Stutzman explained. “I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.”

Weeks later, Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued Stutzman a letter advising that she must accommodate homosexual ceremonies or be subject to a lawsuit and heavy fines. He included with his letter a form that offered Stutzman the opportunity to recant and agree to comply with the law. She refused, and was subsequently met with a discrimination suit.

But Stutzman’s attorneys contended that Ferguson’s actions were inappropriate since he never received a complaint, but rather filed on his own volition. They also filed a motion asking that Ferguson and the ACLU—which filed a separate suit—be prohibited from attacking Stutzman on a personal level.

In January 2015, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Eckstrom—while throwing out a charge that accused Stutzman of directing her business to violate the state’s anti-discrimination laws—ruled that the florist may be held personally responsible for the incident.

A month later, Eckstrom granted summary judgment to Stutzman’s opponents, agreeing that she had committed an act of discrimination. The court also ordered Stutzman to provide full service to same-sex ceremonies, which includes not only accepting the order, but also delivering to the homosexual celebration, and assisting with the specific arrangements and decoration on-site.

She appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which unanimously upheld the lower court ruling in February.

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman was cited and fined, in this case—refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding—constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD (Washington Law Against Discrimination),” the court wrote.

Stutzman is now hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will take her case and couple it with Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which it agreed to hear last month.

“Our nation has a long history of protecting the right to dissent, but simply because Barronelle disagrees with the state about marriage, the government and ACLU have put at risk everything she owns,” ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. “This includes not only her business, but also her family’s savings, retirement funds, and home.”

“Not only does her case and Jack Phillips’ case involve similar issues, but both Barronelle and Jack face burdensome penalties for simply exercising their right of free expression,” she noted.


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
  • Trilemma

    Hopefully, the Supreme Court will hear this and give some clear guidance on this issue. However, the freedom of speech defense seems weak and she will probably lose.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      it is freedom of speech AND freedom of religion ……… and freedom of association ……….

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Yes, except according to you and the other practitioners of pseudolaw on this site, courts can’t overrule legislatures and the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states.

        How do you justify your position?

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          yours is the pseudo-law ….. Gods is the true law …. that you refuse to recognize …………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So you don’t actually have a response then. Got it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you do not have actual law … Got It? ……….

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I wasn’t making a legal argument, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

      • Trilemma

        I think it will be difficult to get 5 supreme court justices to see freedom of speech in a bunch of flowers. Freedom of religion only goes so far. Your freedom of religion can’t be used to deny someone else their legal rights. Freedom of association doesn’t apply for businesses open to public access.

        So, all three things are there but I don’t think the case for them is strong enough to get the supreme court to rule the law Stuzman broke declared unconstitutional.

  • zampogna

    Well, she’s lost every battle so far, so she may as well lose from the highest appeal too.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      only the second highest ……….

  • RWH

    This is going to be an interesting case. I believe that the dividing line is going to be whether a product is basically something “off the shelf” vs one that is custom made. That is, a product where a particular logo or message is put on the product. These people are going to have a hard time proving that a cake baked for a gay wedding is something unique or intrinsically different than a cake baked for any other wedding. The same goes for flowers. I see a flower arrangement. How do I know it is for a wedding, or for a funeral, or for an anniversary? Is it the size? Is it the particular shape? The composition and arrangement of flowers? If a company makes a unique product that a customer wants, what is fair about making that individual go down the street to patronize a business that makes a product that the s/he finds less satisfactory?

    What is more important is that the Civil Rights Law of 1964 can be up for grabs. Back then, people had sincere religious reasons to believe in and practice segregation. We saw this within the past few years when a Baptist church down south refused to allow a black couple to marry in church even though they were members. This case proved two things: 1. That segregation is still alive and well, and weakening the Civil Rights law will cause a heyday of confusion. 2. The church has the right to do anything it pleases. Nobody can force the church to marry anyone it doesn’t want to marry. The same goes for any other rite of the Church.

    Other than the Hobby Lobby case, I believe that courts have declared that a business is not an individual and therefore does not have First Amendment rights. Those that are more familiar with the law can correct me on this.

    • Blake Paine

      Hobby Lobby was decided not on constitutional grounds but on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its definition of who was covered. A business might have protection under the RFRA but it doesn’t have ‘religious liberties’ like a citizen… yet.

      One of the early federal civil rights cases involved someone asserting that they had the sincerely held belief that the races were to be kept seperate. They lost then but if this case creates a right to treating customers like they shared his beliefs then those cases would be winnable now.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    The Petition for Certiorari makes no sense. It goes on and on about how Stuzman’s cakes are her art, and are protected by the First Amendment, etc., but that doesn’t have any bearing on this case. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t protect you from having to follow laws of neutral applicability (Reynolds v. United States), including laws that require you to serve people who are members of protected classes (Heart of Atlanta v. United States).

    • Trilemma

      Can someone working as an independent contractor refuse to do work for someone for any reason whatsoever?

      • Bob Johnson

        While you should wait for a reply from a lawyer, I will put my two cents in. Independent contractors are businesses and have to obey all the normal laws of a business. I may be “self employed” but I am still earning income that must be declared and I must obey laws related to running my business and I will probably have malpractice insurance.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Looks like section 1(f) of the WADS protects literally ALL people engaging in business transactions from discrimination.

        • Trilemma

          What is WADS? I’m having trouble finding it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Washington Anti-Discrimination Statute. Found at Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 49.60.030.

      • Michael C

        It depends on what law you’re looking at. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably wouldn’t consider any independent contract work as being a public accommodation. The federal non-discrimination laws don’t protect gay people anyway, though.

        Most state laws more broadly define public accommodations to include all businesses who offer goods and services to the general public. There are exemptions for things like religious organizations/corporations and private clubs and such.

      • Blake Paine

        That is the issue, any business can refuse anyone but not for any reason.

        Civil rights cases really do depend on clear evidence that the discrimination was because of a civil right quality, which is often very difficult.

        Not so in these cases since the business owners proudly admit they are engaging in religious discrimination of the customer.

  • Patchwork Patty

    It doesn’t say much for these people that they try to destroy an elderly church lady. If they want to be brave, tell them to go after Muslims, who actually kill their kind. This woman is a decent human being who has harmed no one. She deserves to be left alone like any other respectable citizen who is minding her own business. She is standing up for her faith, which is a lot more than can be said about these cowardly clergy.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      She broke the law. There doesn’t need to be any other reason to bring an action against her.

    • Michael C

      The business is facing the penalties of illegally refusing service to a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation. When businesses violate civil rights laws, they face penalties.

      Please point me to where Muslims have broken the law and faced no penalties.

      Nobody is trying to destroy this business owner. She refused to pay the small fine for breaking the law.

      And this isn’t just about her personal faith. Not only did she personally refuse service to a customer on the basis of his sexual orientation, she also refused to allow any of her employees serve this customer as well (even the ones who explicitly stated that they would be willing to do so).

      • AustinRocks

        Don’t you boy-fckers have jobs? You must be on welfare and just spew your hate all day long on the web.

        I’m glad trash like you die of AIDS. Good riddance.

        • Michael C

          I see the obscenities, homophobic language, and wish for my death have been edited from your comment.

          Did you do that or was it done for you?

        • MamaBearly

          Well, aren’t we rude. That’s a sin. Better go repent!

    • SFBruce

      No one is trying “to destroy an elderly church lady.” That said, those of us who support LGBT equality expect everyone to abide by the law, and that includes both genders of all ages as well as both believers and non-believers. Her refusal to do what all business owners in Washington are required to do isn’t “minding her own business.” And if Ms. Stutzman happened to be Muslim, she’d face the same legal problems. Don’t forget, about 0.9% of Americans are Muslim, while about 70% identify as Christian, so it’s not at all surprising that the handful of wedding service providers in legal jeopardy over this issue are Christian.

      I do have some sympathy for Ms Stutzman in her legal representation. Her chances to prevail here are in the slim to none category, and ADF probably sees this as a no-loose for them. Of course, they win if by some amazing turn of events they get a favorable outcome with SCOTUS. If they loose, which is most likely, they’ll just use it as a find raising tool.

  • FoJC

    Crafting special language in order to get a specific legal decision. Now she’s an artist just not wanting to commit her artistic talent to something in which she does not believe? What happened to homosexuality is against God’s Will and I cannot knowing participate in a ceremony celebrating it?

    Better to “lose” in this world standing with the LORD than to dilute the Truth and “win”.

    A Christian florist could always stop making special floral arrangements for weddings and just sell premade packages the customers have to purchase, transport, and set up themselves.

    Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      You know what? I’m with you. Your beliefs are remarkably consistent, even when they lead to an outcome you don’t like. My congratulations.

      • FoJC

        /sarcasm

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No, I really agree with you. I mean, not word for word, but I support your overall point.

        • Michael C

          I also agree with your comment.

          • FoJC

            I’ll have to g back and look it it now, to make certain I didn’t forget any words. Sometimes I type slower than I think. Well, actually I always type slower than I think, so mistakes are made.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            LOL ……….. yeah … it always gives me pause when the wrong people start agreeing with me … ROTFL ………..

          • FoJC

            🙂

    • Blake Paine

      A Christian florist could always stop making special floral arrangements for weddings…

      Exactly what Arlene’s Flowers LLC did in March of 2013 and hasn’t made them since. The owner could have paid the $1000 fine and $1 in legal fees for the single civii rights infraction and gotten on with her life.

      As someone pointed out this was the same solution the 2nd century Christian writer Tertullian suggested, if the pagans are using a Christian incense merchant’s product for idolatry the Christian solution is to stop selling incense.

      • FoJC

        Sort of, but not quite, really. If people don’t remember, the florist never refused to serve homosexuals, she just didn’t want to participate in the sinful ceremony (by designing and, most likely, setting up the flower arrangements). That’s what she refused to do, not sell homosexuals floral products in general. This point is worth noting and separating.

        My suggestion is still to sell the flowers, but keeps florists who have the correct and righteous view of marriage from having to participate in the ceremony. However, doing this would, unfortunately, break many florists’ hearts, since almost all of them revel in the joy of serving at weddings.

        • Blake Paine

          1) she was never asked to be part of the wedding ceremony.
          2) there were other employees that could have taken care of the flowers.

          Stutzman is in the lawsuit because she is the business owner, not as a florist. If she, as a florist, didn’t want to do this wedding there are other employees that can. But as the business owner she is obligated to treat all customers legally and respect their civil rights.

          Or, she can spin off the wedding florals business as its own entity as a private membership club. Best criteria for membership would be ministers, pastors, and the like who share her beliefs and then offer the flowers as being available to only the weddings these pastors conduct.

          Can’t make an offer to everyone – the public – and then pick and choose which customers meet some religious standard they have a constitutional right to not hold.

          • FoJC

            You’re wrong, but you want to be wrong. There’s no convincing a person who wants to be wrong that they are wrong to be wrong. They just sit and argue. Your choice of ignorance and delusion is sad, but I cannot stop your from following the Devil, if that is what you want.

            Homosexuals don’t actually have a constitutional right to force others to participate in their sin. At least not according to the US Constitution.

            The way of Sodom and Gomorrah is the way of Judgement and Eternal Destruction. God will only permit them time to repent or to fill up the measure of their sin, then He will purge the universe of all sin and those who choose to call Him a liar.

            Follow Jesus, find Truth.

          • RWH

            And those who set arbitrary standards and duck behind the Bible in order to treat others unfairly are also wrong. They want to be wrong. They won’t listen to reason. No reasoned explanation will penetrate their thick heads. They are under the delusion that their faith and their particular spin on the Bible is the only thing that counts and that they can do as they please as long as they find a religious reason. And then they cry their eyes out and scream persecution when the courts land on them hard because businesses are not allowed to discriminate. It didn’t work in the early 1960s when people held tried to hide behind the Bible when they refused to do business with the blacks, and it won’t work now.

          • FoJC

            I’m not ducking behind the Bible. I’m secured by Jesus Christ in God, seated with Him in Heavenly places. I rest in the Father’s hand, secured from the deluge of the world and the will of the Devil.

            Reason is carnal, natural. Wisdom comes from God.

            Follow Jesus, find Truth.

          • RWH

            It’s nice to know that you’re secured by Jesus Christ in God. However, I know plenty of people who make that claim yet still make fools of themselves. Belief in Christ is not a substitute for knowledge. When you’re finished reading that Bible of yours, why don’t you pick up a book on the United States history and government. Maybe you’ll discover that the Jews, the Catholics, the Moslems, women, the gays, and just about every group you don’t like have the same rights under the constitution.

          • FoJC

            You’re like Reason 2012 and so many others, you make assumptions, then draw conclusions from your assumptions.

            Your assessment of Faith in God, believing the Word of God, and being saved from Sin is completely inaccurate. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Your vision is dark. You’re going to read my response as some sort of debate ploy, but it’s just Truth.

            This woman has the same right under the Constitution to not have her religious freedoms infringed upon. However, because of social acceptance and laws made by very unwise and foolish people, she (and others like her) are facing legal action over said religious beliefs.

            You make excuses for some, while violating the rights of others.

            Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

          • RWH

            You’re living up to my every expectation from you. Rather than to thoughtfully consider the laws and their ramifications, you prefer to label others as unsaved, heretics, just plain stupid, or whatever else you can think of at the moment.

            She broke the law. People have given all sorts of religious reasons for breaking laws. You right to your beliefs stop when you use those beliefs to tromp on others. There is no intrinsic difference between a flower arrangement for a funeral, for a baptism, for a wedding, or a luncheon. All that differs is the size, shape and composition of flowers. As with other ill-informed people, the ability to sell something to a customer does not equate what the customer does with that product. You allow her a free pass, and you open the floodgates for all others who wish to mistreat others and get a free pass. I remember the days when people had signs on their shop windows stating that no Jews would be served. You want to live in a world where people discriminate on religious principles, go move to Russia. Of course, if you’re not Orthodox, you’ll be on the receiving end, and maybe you will realize how evil this mindset is.

            Being called names is a lot better than putting one’s brain in neutral.

          • FoJC

            Then I must be doing something right. Praise God!

            Follow Jesus, find Salvation.

          • sandraleesmith46

            The “laws” you’re relying on are unconstitutional; you can’t claim to protect the rights of 1 group by violating the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of another group without violating the very document upon which you are claiming reliance. There are intrinsic differences in ceremonies, in fact; and what they “celebrate”. It’s the event celebrated that MAKES that difference; and you’d know that if you had wisdom. IF you purchase something and take it out of the market then use it to some diabolic purpose, the vendor has no part in that. If you purchase an artistic SKILL along with a product that’s a different situation and when what you want that skill applied to comes into play. If it violates the beliefs of the vendor/artist, then he/she has a RIGHT to decline to participate. That goes for the black man who doesn’t want to make shirts for a KKK rally or the Jew who doesn’t want to sell ham on rye sandwiches in his deli etc. Your simplistic and soulless view is where you’re wrong.

          • MamaBearly

            Gee, I did not realize there are 2 Jesus Christ’s. My Jesus Christ told us to love everyone; he did not say, Love everyone EXCEPT…. He told us to love everyone. Whether you like it or not, homosexuals are people too. There is no part of the bible that tells us to hate anyone. Only to hate the sin. Not only that, but if you hate anyone, you are NOT guaranteed salvation. You have to be like Jesus and shine your light so everyone will know about the goodness of Jesus Christ. You really should read the gospel again, so you know what kind of person Jesus wants with him in heaven. There is no guarantee of Salvation unless you have had the second baptism of fire and wind. The baptism of water is for repentance. If we don’t repent of our sins we will not get into heaven. If we act with hate towards anyone, we will not get into heaven. Jesus made it pretty clear that no sinner will be in heaven. He also made it clear that not everyone who thinks they are going to heaven will make it in:
            Matthew 7:21
            Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

            Luke 6:46
            And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

            I’m sorry but NO ONE had a guarantee of Salvation unless you have had the second baptism. In the bible John baptized with water, but he told everyone that Jesus would be coming and would give them the Holy Spirit, (which was not done until after he had been crucified). Water baptism alone is not enough to be guaranteed Salvation. If you don’t follow Jesus’ examples and his teachings you will not go to heaven, as shown in the 2 scriptures I gave above.

            I pray you will understand the Truth of what I say, because it is shown plainly in the gospel what Jesus wants us to be like and hate of person has no part in what Jesus was/is.

            Blessings!

          • FoJC

            I know Jesus. I am in Covenant with God through Jesus.

            Troll much?

          • MamaBearly

            Actually, I’m not a troll. I’ve posted here for a couple of years.
            But I do know the bible and I know what it says and that some people don’t seem to read the gospel and understand that truth about Salvation.
            I understand that you think you are guaranteed Salvation, but no one is as I showed by the 2 scriptures I posted.
            I pray you will receive your salvation but if you don’t follow Jesus and do what he wants us to do (behave), then it’s unlikely you will.
            Jesus wants us to love everyone and to treat (all) people like we want to be treated. That includes homosexuals because they are people first and sinners second. We are not to act with hate towards any one person rather than about their sin, but instead we are to show sinners love to help them overcome their sins. They need to know the Hope of Salvation and repentance or telling them to go to hell will accomplish nothing as far as Jesus is concerned. The Disciples did not just go about yelling to repent, but they also taught the lessons that Jesus taught so the people would understand about sinning and repentance. No one is expected to know about Salvation because not everyone is brought up with the bible or religion. You have to make sure they understand about repentance too.
            I hope that the Covenant with God through Jesus has already told you these things, but I don’t see love in your posts. We need to be like Jesus at all times, not just when we feel like it.
            Discrimination is basically hatred, and Jesus never had hate in his heart for another person, not even sinners.
            BTW I’m not a troll, I just want as many people to follow Jesus as possible and I try to show why I believe the things I say with scriptures. I am not trying to fight with anyone, which trolls like to do, but I will point out misconceptions if it is necessary. After all there are many people who read these posts, but do not comment.
            Also, the bible is the final word on everything, and I showed you in scriptures what I wanted you to realize. If we see a brother or sister who are falling away from following Jesus, we are supposed to rebuke them – all I did was point it out as truthfully as I am able. We are all human with carnal desires, and we can all make mistakes. That, among other reasons, is why Jesus died for us: so when we make a mistake, we can ask for forgiveness.
            I too am in Covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I am very strict with myself about making sure people know the Truth, and when someone is mistaken, I let them know. With Scriptures.
            Blessings!

          • FoJC

            “I understand that you think you are guaranteed Salvation…”

            This invalidates all you wrote. I have never written anything that even remotely suggests what you assert.

            Sounds like you’re just trying to “dig” for specifics about what I believe, so you can classify me into a group or commonly believed doctrine. This is also trolling. The length of time a person posts comment on a service doesn’t define whether or not they’re a troll. Trolls ask a question for effect, to get a specific response, and for other subversive reasons.

            Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

          • MamaBearly

            I apologize for the length of this post, but I did want to clarify my position.

            Actually I’m not a troll, I just have a bad habit of trying to make sure everything I say is very clear. I believe that the ‘silent posters’ can learn more about Jesus when things are explained and spreading the gospel is paramount in our duties. I apologize for the length of the posts I don’t edit before posting. Please forgive me if it offends you.

            You are quite wrong about me. I don’t bait people, I ask questions often to learn other people’s beliefs and why they have them if they are varied from my understanding. I’m sure many other posters will back me up on that too.

            I don’t think you can ever know the bible completely without reading it over and over, because there are times that when you read it for the (i.e). the 4th, time, that you will understand what it is saying in a different way than you do every other time. Because the scriptures are inspired by God Almighty, He is the one that opens our eyes to the parts of the bible that we need to understand because of something in your life.

            By asking questions and for understanding of others views, I sometimes learn something that I have missed in the scriptures. That is important to me because of my faith – I want to know as much as I can and without asking questions I can’t do that.

            Please let me know if you get too annoyed by my long posts if we discuss anything and I’ll try harder to edit them down for you. Please understand that I don’t do it for any other reason than to make things clear for anyone who is reading the post. Some people don’t know much and it’s in this kind of situation that they might learn something that helps them to believe. [Someone told me that was evangelism, but I just thought of it as my duty to spread the gospel.] I want everyone to be able to decide what to believe by more information rather than “it’s what my religion believes”. I don’t say we should go against our chosen religions, I just think that there are some things that you might not agree with when you know more views, but if every thing else is what you believe, then you longsuffer to have the Church in fellowship. The point of following Jesus and the gospel should be what every religion that uses the bible, shouldn’t it?
            When I see something different then I explain my own belief. I usually ask people to read the NT and decide for themselves. I don’t want people to change faiths, so much as I desire to give everyone the chance for Salvation and knowing different things about some parts of the bible is part of that.
            Please do forgive me for any offense I have caused. And if you are interested, I love discussions much more than bickering, which trolls like to do, and any time you want a discussion let me know, OK? That of course is something that if for anyone interested in a reasonable discussion without rudeness, or whatnot, and more informing and explaining to help each other and others understand and believe.
            God Bless you!

          • sandraleesmith46

            There are a LOT of Jesus’ out there; and loving people doesn’t mean enabling behaviors that are harmful to those people or engaging in activities that our Lord has long since condemned as abominations. In fact, those actions are actually HATEFUL.

          • MamaBearly

            Hi Sandralee I’m not quite sure how you mean there are lots of Jesus’
            out there, unless you mean followers of Jesus, or you mean the people
            who think they are Jesus – antichrists.
            How is giving equal rights
            enabling any sinful actions? Do you think Jesus would tell people to not
            sell food to a sinner. That’s what they do to gays. Would he want
            people to harass them about their sin? Well, he certainly did not harass
            the woman who committed adultery, did he? That is considered an
            abomination too, but human beings decided to change that and now allow
            it. Did you take a stand against that when it happened? There is not a
            speck of difference between the two, except to have equal rights they
            had to expose their sin. Even Adulterers don’t have to stand up and tell
            the world what they have done so they can be fed at restaurants. Or buy
            food to survive. Or, for the love of Jesus, walk down a road without being
            yelled at or beaten up for it. We would not want others to treat us like
            that for our sins, would we?. Besides the fact that we cannot punish
            for the sins, we have NO authority to do that. Jesus will do that when
            it is time for Judgement Day.
            The point I have been trying to enable
            people to see, is that the human equal rights are for everyone and sin
            has nothing to do with those rights. We are all sinners. We have equal
            rights and we sin, why should they be any different?
            I have never
            said I don’t think they should not repent for their sin. I just believe
            very strongly that Jesus would not approve of the way people are
            treating them for being alive, rather than for the sin.
            Another
            thing I have pointed out is that we do not have to expose our sins to
            the whole world, as they have had to do JUST so they can live like the
            rest of us. Equal rights is for all human beings, not just who we decide
            is ‘allowed’ to have it.
            Yes our Lord said that the Act of
            homosexuality is disgusting and hateful, but did he say to take all
            their rights away because of that?
            NO. He said to treat everyone like you want to be treated. He said he wanted us to love everyone, with NO EXCEPTIONS.
            Jesus
            also told us to leave them to their sins, AFTER telling them about
            repenting and Salvation. He never told us to hate people, only sin, and
            that does not mean we have the right to refuse anyone, sinner or not,
            the same rights we have. As sinners.
            Too many people forget that sin
            is the only thing we are supposed to TALK to people about to tell them
            about repenting and salvation, and everything else in the Gospel. We are
            not even supposed to know each others sins unless we want to talk about
            them to others. Why should we condemn them for their sins, before they
            die, when Jesus said anyone could turn to him and repent of their sins.
            I
            know from past posts that you have been dreadfully hurt by some people
            who are gay, but you don’t seem to realize that the majority of people
            who are gay are not like those. The majority of gays want to be left alone and be allowed
            to live like us, with all the rights that we have. WE don’t have the
            ‘right’ to sin, and neither does anyone.
            WE cannot enable a gay to
            sin. it is not possible for Us to do that. Even by giving equal rights.
            Allowing us to have those rights does not make us run out and sin. It
            just allows us to live and love the way we want to. It should not be any different for anyone else.
            It is not easy to change the hate of people who have hurt us in a life changing way. I understand that. Any person who has been abused in any way would find it hard to forgive and not hate them. But it is what we are supposed to do as followers of Jesus. We can’t refuse it because it will affect our own salvation if we do.
            If you want to try to change the people who are sinning by being gay, you have to talk to them about the Gospel and tell them about repenting and Salvation as well as Jesus’ love. Yelling and hurtful language does not make people change. It makes them resentful, and determined to go against what they are being yelled at and hurt by. If we approach people with the forgiveness our Father wants us to show, with love of the person as a possible follower of Jesus, with the right given to all of us by God whether to follow him or not with our free choice; we are doing what Jesus told us to do. Anything else is against Jesus’ word.
            Be a disciple of Jesus and spread the gospel and make a difference so what happened in your life won’t happen to someone else. But don’t condemn everyone who is the same in one way as being the same in hateful ways too. You are not the same as your neighbour down the street who sins, why do you think that ‘all’ gays would be the same as the ones that hurt your life?
            I pray for healing in your life, and for the peace and joy that Jesus promises us. I pray you can find it in your heart to forgive and to love others, and help them overcome their sins, rather than hating them and wanting to hurt them back. I pray in Jesus’ name.
            God bless you!

          • sandraleesmith46

            What I mean about a “lot of Jesus'” is exactly what our Lord Himself, and His apostles as well later on, warned about. Jesus as presented in the Bible is NOT the Person you present here. He LOVED without approving sinful actions, without accepting those behaviors at all. Invariably, He instructed people to STOP sinning; what you suggest enables continuation of that sinful behavior and supports/encourages it. The most loving act for such people is to confront that sinful behavior and tell them to stop it. You don’t know, they may not have a tomorrow to deal with it; they may not even have a 5 minutes from now. By failing to confront, you allow that person to go to hell unchallenged, and Yhwh God will hold that soul to your account as well.There are many Jesus’ out there now; as plastic and false as the one you present here.
            Jesus is LOVE, yes; but HE is also RIGHTEOUSNESS, and you can never separate the 2. Righteousness doesn’t affirm or “embrace” sin; it rejects it resoundingly. If the Father was to enter many of today’s churches, humans inside it would likely experience explosive combustion. We are called to be holy (righteous) as He is holy; not to be “tolerant”!
            As for “equal rights”, ALL US citizens HAD all the same rights following the Civil Rights acts in the mid-’60s. What is being demanded now is special protections and privileges, NOT “rights” equal or otherwise, based on delusional beliefs, not objective reality.
            I suggest you find out Who the REAL Jesus is; He’s found in the pages of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. As John said: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”; Jesus IS that Word! You may also want to learn that “love” isn’t always a “warm, fuzzy” emotion; sometimes it’s an act of WILL that does that which is in the BEST interests of another, even when it’s not what that other thinks he wants.

          • MamaBearly

            What I mean about a “lot of Jesus'” is exactly what our Lord Himself, and His apostles as well later on, warned about.

            I asked if you were talking about antichrists and it was apparently a yes.
            If you are accusing me of being an antichrist, please watch your manners. I have
            done nothing to make you believe that. In every statement I make, I tell you
            plainly to search the scriptures. I have rarely made the suggestion that my way is right and your view is wrong. If you look at any of my posts, you will see that is true. What I have said is to go to God’s Word to see if what I say is in the scriptures and therefore the truth.

            And, ummm, I don’t think that the devil is going to help prove that God loves everyone, with No exceptions. Do you?

            Jesus as presented in the Bible is NOT the Person you present here. He LOVED without approving sinful actions, without accepting those behaviors at all. Invariably, He instructed people to STOP sinning; what you suggest enables continuation of that sinful behavior and supports/encourages it. The most loving act for such people is to confront that sinful behavior and tell them to stop it. You don’t know, they may not have a tomorrow to deal with it; they may not even have a 5 minutes from now.

            The fact is that neither do you know when you will be gone, and you sin too. I’ve
            been telling you of all the sins you are doing and saying and you are ignoring me. Does that mean you don’t care about your salvation and you’ll take a chance that what I say is actually not true?
            You have to search the scriptures to know if what I say is true or not. Everyone knows that. I know that scriptures will back up every single thing I say. I am aware of a number of ways you will not be able to offer scriptures to either prove me wrong, or prove yourself right. And it was Jesus that told us to search the scriptures to be sure of anything ANYONE (including your church leader) tells you so you will see for yourself whether what is said, is in alignment with what Jesus our Lord said in the N.T. so don’t give me grief about that truth, it is up to you to search scriptures to find whether I am being truthful about what I am saying. The only way you can determine the truth of anything you believe must be by searching the scriptures for evidence that it agrees with it.

            Invariably, He instructed people to STOP sinning; what you suggest enables continuation of that sinful behavior and supports/encourages it.

            I NEVER said to not give them the story of the Hope of Salvation, and repentance.
            NOT once. In fact I tell everyone every time that homosexuality is something that needs to be repented for because it is a sin, but the way to do it is not the way many Christians seem to think and they think it is what Jesus meant by rebuking without taking anything else into consideration.

            Besides, I can’t find where we are told to be harsh when I tell anyone of their sins. Not
            in the Gospel. It’s the final word on everything.
            And please don’t give me the Love the sinner not the sin, because that is not what
            you are feeling in your heart or it would not show as hate in your posts. And it has.

            Let’s play WWJD about this. What do you think Jesus would do in each case?
            1. Would Jesus tell anyone to starve because of their sin?
            2. Would he not allow anyone to have an apartment or roof over their heads,
            food and water? Because of their sin?
            3. Would Jesus tell anyone that they have no right to eat at a restaurant. Because of their sin?
            4. Would Jesus tell anyone to punish sinners here while we are here on Earth,
            instead of leaving ALL PUNISHMENT to Jesus. Because of their sin?

            Would Jesus tell us that us that the 2nd of the last commandments [of which there is only 2;] is one of the 2 that could be ignored because we are supposed to hate someone’s sin – which is none of anyone’s business except Jesus’ in the first place?

            It’s up to Jesus to hear confessions of sins and repentance, not ours. It is Jesus that will forgive us our sins, not you or the others that believe as you do.

            I don’t live the way I live, following Jesus our Lord – for you, or anyone else – I live this way for Jesus. ONLY. So if you think I am wrong, go talk to him again. Read the scriptures and prove that there was any harshness when Jesus spoke to anyone. If there had been it would have been pointed out. Please don’t point out the Scribes and the Pharisee or the church of the money lenders.

            I should warn you that you won’t find it.
            Tell me how allowing them to have equal rights enables them to sin, first of
            all.

            Then tell me how having equal rights enables you to sin. Or anyone else.
            Do you think Jesus would agree with doing anything more than compassionately
            telling someone about their sin, salvation and repenting, or do you really think he would be yelling and being demeaning to anyone he loved?

            He always approached the sinners with compassion and the knowledge he was here
            to minister (teach). He never once punished anyone by humiliating them and demeaning them in front of the others. NEVER
            Why do you think that is the way he wants you to do it?

            Besides, you don’t speak about them with love in any way. There is not a speck of love
            in the way you speak about them, not even when you “tell them” about their sin.
            You don’t love them, you hate the persons and just want them to be gone from your
            site because they are “disgusting”. You don’t give a damn if they repent, as long as you don’t have to look at, hear of, or know of anything to do with them because of that disgust.
            I think the way you behave towards gays is an abomination. Look at the dictionary if you don’t know why.

            It was Jesus that told us to search the scriptures to be sure of anything anyone tells you so you will see for yourself whether what is said, is in alignment with what Jesus our Lord said in the N.T. so don’t give me grief about that truth, it is up to you to search scriptures to find whether I am not being truthful about what I am saying. The only way you can determine the truth of anything you believe must be by searching the scriptures for evidence that it agrees with it. There are people who give scripture references to prove points that have no connection with the topic we were discussing. Always check the scriptures. Everything is dependent on scriptures so it is you that
            should be searching the scriptures to find out if I am quoting them in the right context, and if what I am quoting, is actually from Jesus’ teaching in the N.T.
            I have never in my time of posting, say anyone MUST believe the way I do. I will recommend they think about the way I present my view, and read the gospel.
            Nothing I say will convince you except that it matches what it says in the scripture and when it is in scriptures, you must look at what was its focus is on in the scriptures. If it’s not directly in connection with the scriptures, you cannot believe what you were told. You are NOT to believe what has been told, if it is not in the scriptures.

            My belief is that by recommending anyone to read the gospel is the way to open their eyes. I know God will open the eyes he chooses to if they do read the gospel. He does it all the time. Other than telling anyone about sin, we can do nothing once we give the story about salvation and repentance and what they need to know before they can choose whether to follow Jesus.
            Anything more or less that doing this, is against Jesus’ word, Sandralee, and I will provide proof in scriptures for everything I say in any post ever. Because if it isn’t in the scriptures, it isn’t the truth, and if it is in the scriptures then it IS truth.

            I have gone way beyond how much I wanted to say to help you see what I am recommending. Seriously read the gospel without missing how often Jesus talked about love and sin together.
            Seriously find the scriptures that tell us to punish anyone for their sins, except those
            of the Law of the Land.
            Adultery was removed from the list by human beings, by the way. So, unless you protest those who chose the wrong person to marry too, you are a hypocrite.
            So tell me what kind of things you say when you encounter any gays, Sandralee.
            Do you rebuke them and tell them they are damned to Hell, Sandralee?
            What do you say to the gays on a platform when you want to tell them their
            sins, and rebuke them right there in the public’s face?

            Oh yeah, and would you want anyone to do that to you, anything that you would
            do to them.

            Put yourself in their place as a sinner, not necessarily gay, but a sinner as we are, every one of us.

            Now take away your home/apartment….

            Now take away your food, water, and anything you use in your daily life….

            Take away your ability to go into any store you want to buy clothes in.

            Take away your ability to choose which restaurant you are able to eat in….

            And now put into place, the people who will humiliate, and demean you with
            words, so everyone in the whole world thinks you are worthless and should not have any rights until you repent and accept the hope of Salvation.

            How does that fit for you?

            As a sinner, this is what you are saying is the right way to treat a sinner. Homosexuality is no bigger a sin as any other sin. God is no respecter of persons. One will not get more or less than the other sinner that does not repent. He does not care who you are if you are determined to sin without repentance. Everyone will have the same punishment, for sins Period. It’s in the scriptures.

            Let me know if you can find all the love Jesus showed to us, in the time he spent here.

            I pray you will see the Truth in the Gospel.
            God bless!

          • FoJC

            You engage in the cycle of shallow debate.

            Go talk to someone else.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Ah but homosexuals who reject requests from straights to do things with which they disagree are okay to do so? THAT is the hypocrisy of the left.

          • Blake Paine

            You’re wrong, but you want to be wrong. There’s no convincing a person who wants to be wrong that they are wrong to be wrong. They just sit and argue. Your choice of ignorance and delusion is sad, but I cannot stop your from following the Devil, if that is what you want.

            Homosexuals don’t actually have a constitutional right to force others to participate in their sin.

            No one was asked to do anything but provide the service that it willingly advertised to people of all beliefs. If selling flowers to people legally is a sin then why offer them at all?

            At least not according to the US Constitution.
            The way of Sodom and Gomorrah is the way of Judgement and Eternal Destruction. God will only permit them time to repent or to fill up the measure of their sin, then He will purge the universe of all sin and those who choose to call Him a liar.
            Follow Jesus, find Truth.

            After removing the opinion and legally irrelevant parts there wasn’t much to actually reply about.

          • FoJC

            Great. Then you can go talk to someone else.

          • peanut butter

            What happened to ‘No shoes no shirt no service’. ‘You break it you bought it’. When I was young, you had NO civil rights when someone refused service. If they said “Leave”, you left or had the police called to escort you out. And it was the owners right, because it was HIS business. You snowflakes are really starting to P me O, with your brainwashed understanding of what is right or wrong.

          • Blake Paine

            Washington state has had recognized civil rights since 1949, the earliest civil rights recognized were in the 1890’s

            People have had civil rights for most of even your life, a bit late to whine about it now.

          • peanut butter

            None of those rights were in favor of deviants.

          • Blake Paine

            Actually they apply to every citizen.

          • MamaBearly

            That’s exactly why the LGBTQ’s are fighting for equality, so everyone gets the same rights.
            The reason that people can’t do what they did when we were young, is that it wasn’t fair to everyone. If we want to be treated fairly, shouldn’t we treat others fairly in return?

          • peanut butter

            Not for deviant behavior.

          • MamaBearly

            I’m hoping I’m not misunderstanding your post… I have not seen you around before so don’t know your way of posting.

            Deviant behaviour is about a sin: having equal rights is a human right whether they are sinners or not – after all we are all sinners.
            Having the ability to go to a store and be served instead of ushered out because you are a sinner is not what Jesus wanted us to do. Jesus told us to love everyone, and did not list ANY exceptions. As we are all sinners, and there really is scripture that says that one sin will not be greater punishment than another sin. Let me know if you need that scripture, ok?
            I am a Christian who trusts God, and will only stand for my faith in Him, and even though I do believe that all sinners need what Jesus is offering everyone, which takes repentance; I do not believe that the sin of homosexuality is any worse than any other sin that people can do. All we are supposed to do as Christians, according to the N.T. is to “rebuke” them -> tell them they are sinning and how. -> teach them the gospel about Jesus’ love and his plan for salvation that is offered to all people, for the repentance of sins, and let each sinner choose with their free will whether to follow Jesus or not. If a sinner chooses not to believe, or repent, we as Christians believe that those people will be damned. It is up to each person what to choose, and we are not supposed to be troubling to someone who does not choose to follow Jesus. He said that they will have their damnation at Judgement day, and to let them be. Basically that we as Christians have to leave Judgement and punishment of sins (other than laws of the land) to God’s Authority and cannot take it upon ourselves to think we know more than God so we can punish a sinner while they are alive here. There is nothing in the N.T. that says that we may do those things.
            God blessings!

          • peanut butter

            Eschew evil. Not ’embrace’ it. If you were up on things, you would know that these homos shopped around to find someone who wouldn’t provide services to them so they could start a lawsuit. I’m not trying to make it hard on anyone. But you’re not supposed to make it easier to sin for anyone either, else you are aiding them in their sin.

          • MamaBearly

            Yes you are right, but does that mean they have no rights because they are sinners?
            Equal rights does not enable gays to sin, any more than equal rights enable us to sin, because it is exactly the same.
            I am posting another reply to help people understand shortly, but for you I’ll make it quicker than that particular posting.
            I call it my WWJD game
            What would Jesus do in these situations. Each of them are about equal rights, ok?
            1. Would Jesus tell anyone to starve because of their sin?
            2. Would he not allow anyone to have an apartment or roof over their heads, food and water? because of their sin?
            3. Would Jesus tell anyone that they have no right to eat at a restaurant. Because of their sin?
            4. Would Jesus tell anyone to punish sinners here while we are here on Earth, instead of leaving ALL PUNISHMENT to Jesus. because these particular sins are equal to God as he is no respecter of persons, right? He doe not treat anyone differently with regard to what sin they commit. He told us that in scriptures.

            If you think Jesus would approve of any one of these WWJD questions, I suggest you re-read the Gospel. Just some advice to a brethren.

            I have always tell people to check the gospel scriptures to confirm what I am pointing out they do. I have to make sure everyone I am able to reach, that they must read the gospel over and over to learn what Jesus was teaching us there. It can not be read simply once. I usually tell them my belief that Jesus is about the Agape Love and it is a complete love that the Lord has for all of us. Jesus himself never did more than tell the sinners to go and not sin. Not only did he not punish the woman for adultery, he would not let the Hebrews either, even though it was the law. He simply pointed out that only someone who has no sins has authority to punish a sinner. He was teaching us that we are not to punish them ourselves.

            He was also telling us that we should not punish others for not following him in the scripture about how the disciples that stopped following Jesus heard they were expected to eat Jesus’ flesh, and drink his blood. They did not have the faith to trust Jesus when he said that. They left and he told the others to let them go. No words in anger to them, no punishment until their damnation. He let them go, even though they were committing a big no-no when it comes to their eternal life. They will be damned as Jesus said.

            If Jesus never treated any sin as something to be punished for during his time to minister here before his crucifixion. He did not say we are to punish them in any way either. Helping people understand the gospel salvation and repentance is what we are supposed to do. We are not supposed to demean them and make them feel like dung like people too often do. This is how some people “love” other people.

            You see, Peanut Butter, I believe in the command “Treat people the way you want to be treated” because I know that it is true that treating people well, means they will (really!) treat you well back. Not everyone, but many. I live by that rule, and it has never let me down, even when someone starts off by being rude, they will often calm and speak to me with the respect I show them. Enough people have done this back to me to tell me that by experience, people can turn their attitude around when reminded about manners. (Some people are worse, but not too many fortunately)
            So can you answer those WWJD questions without going against the teachings of Jesus?
            If you do not believe me, search the N.T. because everything I’ve said is true by Jesus’ teachings.

            Basically, I am daring you to find something that tells us to do those 4 things I asked the WWJD. You can even find scripture that supports the idea that the love – even the kind of love – used in the bibles – is all Jesus ended up asking us all to do. Love each other. Because when we love each other we don’t want to hurt each other. Because we love everyone, and treat everyone well, our lights for Jesus show, and everyone around will see the good works and give The Father Glory.

            If we are supposed to love each other, we can’t treat each other without that love. We would not talk to a daughter who fornicates differently than another girl? We’d talk to them, and we would not be yelling hell and damnation, but more likely that she will be told she needed to repent and not fornicate again. Well, fornication is a sin too, and people are not punished by being treated rudely any more. The had to make a stand at one time, to have equal rights too. But the sin of fornication is nothing but a sin that needs repenting of. Neither is homosexuality. It is just a sin that will be punished just like all other sin that has not been repented for. By Jesus. Only.

            Please read the scriptures and see if they match what I have said.

            The disciples often repeat what Jesus said in their writings, so you can also find what I say in those. I know it is in the scriptures, and I have not twisted either the meaning or the way they are expressed.

            God bless you and keep you!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t deal in what is right or wrong. I only report what is legal or illegal, and denying service to LGBT people in Washington is illegal. Whether it should or should not be is above my pay grade.

          • peanut butter

            And your brain is washed clean of all morality.

    • MamaBearly

      I agree with you too. And I must say, Ambulance Chaser does not dabble in sarcasm. I can assure you that If he said he agreed with you, he did.
      Personally, I think it was a great suggestion that would be a reasonable attempt at “getting along”.

  • Croquet_Player

    It bears mentioning here that the original penalty was a small fine. Her pro-bono legal team, the anti-gay “Alliance Defending Freedom” encouraged her to fight it, wanting to use her as a test case. They’ve lost every appeal since, and the fines and penalties have mounted. If anyone is putting her home and savings at risk, it’s them.

    • Michael C

      I don’t know that I’d call this a “test case” for ADF. They had already lost several similar cases in courts around the country, one being appealed all the way to SCOTUS (who chose not to hear the appeal, letting the district court decision stand).

      They knew that Stutzman would lose but they also knew that defending these types of cases is really good for fund raising.

      If anyone is putting her home and savings at risk, it’s them.

      This. All day, this.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Wait, I’m confused. ADF tried to appeal a district court ruling to Supreme?

        • Michael C

          My mistake, SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of a state Supreme Court decision.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Got it, that makes more sense.

    • Stinger

      In other words, you’re a sadist who enjoys watching Christians suffer.

      You progressives talk compassion, but I’ve never seen you practice it.

      • Croquet_Player

        Nonsense. I want people to follow the anti-discrimination laws in their state. I think Ms. Stutzman received terrible legal advice when she was encouraged to pursue the matter by her team, but that’s another matter. I have no idea what they said to her, or why they were willing to let the fines and penalties mount up. You’ll have to ask them.

  • Tangent002

    It really doesn’t matter to the law whether or not you claim to be an ‘artist’. If you operate a business of public accommodation selling your talents, those talents cannot be reserved only for those people whom you feel ‘deserve’ them. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in Washington.

    • NCOriolesFan

      Saying no is not illegal nor discrimination. No shoes, no shirt, no service.

      • Michael C

        There are plenty of resources available online if you wish to learn about the nondiscrimination laws that have been on the books for over half a century.

        Businesses are free to say ‘no shoes, no shirt, no service.’

        They’re not permitted to say ‘no Irish, no Muslims,’ (and in some places) ‘no gays.’

        • NCOriolesFan

          I say no, I say no. that’s that. I don’t need any government ‘permission’ to say no whoever I want. My life is NOT subjected to anyone personal immorality. The gay person should have accepted the no answer, walked out and gone to another business that would cater to him. But no he wants to cause trouble for the Christian irregardless of her beleifs. That is a bigot.

          • Michael C

            I say no, I say no. that’s that. I don’t need any government ‘permission’ to say no whoever I want.

            …and while you’re doing that, the rest of us will carry on living in this century.

            Do you even operate a public accommodation?

          • NCOriolesFan

            “rest of us will carry on living in this century.” So will I till God decides otherwise.

            My house is a neighborhood, but is MY house. Just like my business. ‘Discrimination happens everyday, everywhere. BTW God is discriminate to for only those that are his children – what will do you about that, complain to a secular court which wouldn’t have any jurisdiction anyway. God would have the final say too, not some Halloween costumed judge.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If your house is, for whatever reason, a public accommodation, then you can’t deny people who go there whatever services you provide on the bases set forth in your state’s non discrimination law.

          • MamaBearly

            BTW God is discriminate to only those that are his children

            This is totally False! God loves everyone sinner or not, whether they are one of the people who follow him, or not. Because some day they might change their mind. Jesus even said that some will come to salvation in the end times.God may bless us more often, and answer our prayers, but he does NOT discriminate when it comes to any one person. He wants everyone to come to salvation.

            Yes we are his children, but he loves everyone whether they are his followers (his children) or not. He wants everyone to follow him so his children are happy. He can’t discriminate if he wants that.

            Blessings!

        • Randomutation

          The florist did not say “no gays”. She was selective only about ideas – not people.

          • Michael C

            Just because someone doesn’t always discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic doesn’t make it legal when they do.

            For example, if a floral business had a long-time repeat customer who they had served for years who was black, and this black customer requested floral arrangements for their wedding to a white person, the floral business would not be permitted to refuse the order just because the owner of the business disagrees with interracial marriages. That would be considered discrimination on the basis of race.

            It doesn’t matter whether or not the business always discriminates on the basis of race. It’s still illegal even if it’s just one time.

            Does that make sense?

          • Randomutation

            “Does that make sense?”

            It would if you could cite a ruling by a federal court that supports your contention that such a denial “would be considered discrimination on the basis of race”. But I can find no such ruling. And I see from our discussion on the other thread that you haven’t found anything either.

          • Michael C

            You don’t believe that refusing service to an interracial couple because they’re an interracial couple constitutes discrimination on the basis of race?

            Wow.

          • Randomutation

            Please see my comment to you in the other thread about the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

          • Michael C

            Please see my comment to in in the other thread about associational race discrimination.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Cite the ruling that says it’s not.

          • Randomutation

            “Cite the ruling that says it’s not.”

            If there is no ruling one way or the other, then the defendant should get benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, the doubt is not even neutral. Let’s review the circumstances upon which the alleged discrimination is being ruled:
            A baker or florist who
            1) provides same sex couples the same services he provides everyone else.
            2) won’t create a cake or flower arrangement that celebrates same sex marriage no matter who requests it (same sex couples, parents, other family, friends, activists, social justice warriors, whatever).
            3) Won’t create the item in 2 even if the same sex couple getting married is not gay
            4) Won’t create the item in 2 even if no same sex marriage is actually taking place

            Those facts don’t just mean that the legitimacy of the discrimination charge is in doubt one way or the other. They, in fact weigh very heavily against any charge of discrimination.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            won’t create a cake or flower arrangement that celebrates same sex marriage no matter who requests it (same sex couples, parents, other family, friends, activists, social justice warriors, whatever).

            1. Oh, come on.

            2. Okay then she’s discriminating based on the gender of the parties. Would you prefer we fine her for that instead?

            3. Seriously, come on. You know this is exactly what the legislature meant when they added “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes.

          • Randomutation

            “1. Oh, come on.”

            Which one of those facts do you think is not true?

            “2. Okay then she’s discriminating based on the gender of the parties. Would you prefer we fine her for that instead?”

            Those facts do not support a charge of gender-based discrimination either.

            “3. Seriously, come on. You know this is exactly what the legislature meant when they added “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes.”

            Really? I wonder how many of their constituents were hoodwinked into thinking it was about employment, and housing, and education, and lodging, and restaurant service – you know, the things African Americans had to fight so hard for. I’m glad to know that gays don’t have to worry about those things, and can focus instead on cake and flowers.

          • Blake Paine

            I wonder how many of their constituents were hoodwinked into thinking it was about employment, and housing, and education, and voting rights, and lodging, and restaurant service

            Considering the landmark civil rights case in Washington state was about a young African American refused the purchase of a Slurpee at a 7/11 probably to much. What’s being denied isn’t the issue as the Washington state Supreme Court agreed:

            We agree with Ingersoll and Freed that “This case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches.”

            Freedom from invidious discrimination is the intent of ciivl rights laws.

          • Randomutation

            Doesn’t sound like the members of the Washington State Court are familiar with what life was really like for African Americans during Jim Crow. Indignity was only part of it. There were other very real and very harsh consequences of racial discrimination. It is extremely racist and elitist for the Washington State justices to compare these real and extreme conditions to whatever indignity one feels if a baker or florist denies a request for wedding services.
            Not being able to get decent jobs, homes, and education had real and severe impact on the lives of African Americans. It wasn’t about hurt feelings, it was about being forced to live under deplorable circumstances that drastically shortened their lives and the lives of their children. It was about conditions that often left a life of crime and prison as the only alternative for many African Americans. It was about not being able to vote for people who might work to correct the disgraceful conditions.
            Even lunch and lodging discrimination had severe consequences far beyond the indignity. Not being able to get meals and lodging on the road could lead to fatigue and fatal auto accidents. Yes, civil rights law for blacks was very much about lunch, and lodging, and jobs, and housing, and education, and medical care, and voting rights. It was about real and tangible things. Not about affirmation.

          • Blake Paine

            Civil rights laws were always about more than mere race from their earliest forms in the 1890s. Washington has had them since 1949. That you think someone else is ‘more deserving’ of rights has nothing to do with the fact everyone has them equally. They were there to protect the customers of the Piggie Park Enterprises drive-ins whether you think they really needed to have drive-in food rather than the same in the restaurant or not.

            The intent of civil rights is to prevent invidious discrimination of the public when made public offers. In Washington any that were contentious were put up to and confirmed by popular vote. Most certainly there is no right to religious discrimination of employees or customers as Lee and Hobby Lobby confirm.

          • Randomutation

            African Americans had real discrimination to face. Not pretend discrimination about hurt feelings. Enslaved for hundreds of years. Lynched with impunity for the killers. Starved, beaten, not allowed to vote. Denied decent jobs. Denied decent housing. Denied decent medical care. Denied decent education. Real discrimination. Not pretend discrimination about hurt feelings. The comparison is an insult to them.

          • Blake Paine

            Nice opinion, has nothing to do with the universal nature of civil rights. Want special rewards for blacks figure something out.

            Reparations maybe?

          • Randomutation

            Yeah, maybe reparations. Break the cycle of poverty-/drugs-crime.
            Meanwhile I they would appreciate it if others would stop trivializing the horrors they went through by claiming that inconvenience and hurt feelings are the modern equivalent of Jim Crow.

          • Blake Paine

            Actually no one has even mentioned Jim Crow but you, that’s your red herring. This is about you desperately trying to discount precedence that destroys your case Unfortunately for you everyone has equal civil rights and having to choose between a drive-in and a sit down restaurant is just not the horror you are trying to make it out to be.

          • Randomutation

            You may not have used the term “Jim Crow”, but your reference to blacks and lunch counters does refer to that era. There is just no comparison. Blacks were denied service just for being black.

          • Blake Paine

            But refusal from lunch counters wasn’t Jim Crow. No, since those same restaurants would seat blacks in the seated restaurant area. Discrimination isn’t justified by the creed of the business owner, the customer’s have a right to a creed of their own.

          • Randomutation

            ““Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-black laws. It was a way of life.”
            Jim Crow Museum: Origins of Jim Crow – Ferris State University

            Refusing blacks at lunch counters was most definitely part of “the racial caste system”, and the “way of life”.

          • Blake Paine

            Then you are using the term differently than I’ve had it presented.

          • Randomutation

            Regardless of whether you call it Jim Crow or not, the fact remains that comparing wedding cake denial to the horrors that blacks endured is absurd.

          • Blake Paine

            And since we all have the same rights regardless this is an obvious red herring.

          • Randomutation

            Blacks don’t claim the right to force a baker to create a cake that celebrates an opinion the baker objects to. So stop invoking their struggles as some kind of rationale for gay privilege.

          • Blake Paine

            Straw man – this is about the obligations of the bakery, not the baker. One baker doesn’t want to make the cake let another.

            And every customer responding to a public invitation being able to buy what was freely offered to the public without civil right discrimination is not any sort of ‘privilege’, its just the way the people have legally regulated such public transactions.

          • Randomutation

            No matter whether it’s the bakery or the baker, blacks don’t claim the right to force a bakery or a baker to create a cake that celebrates an opinion the bakery or baker objects to. So stop invoking their struggles as some kind of rationale for gay privilege.

          • Blake Paine

            Again, no one is being forced – the business freely advertised the availability of custom wedding services to the public, no matter the responding customer’s creed.

            And that you call civil rights ‘privilege’ just shows how far you are willing to go to create this right of religious discrimination which will undermine the protections of the first amendment for everyone.

          • Randomutation

            Once again there is no civil right that allows you to force someone to create something that expresses an opinion they object to. If you claim such a “right” then you are claiming a special right. Blacks don’t claim any such a right. If they did, you would find it in the 5 decades of civil rights litigation in federal courts. Or you would find it in the writings of the NAACP, or in the speeches of Martin Luther King. Or somewhere in the history of the black civil rights struggle. But you don’t. ANYWHERE. It’s a special right.

          • Blake Paine

            No one is forcing the anyone to create anything expressive, they are buying the freely advertised service from a business that knew they had a legal obligation to sell it regardless of the customer’s creed, séx or sexual orientation. If someone doesn’t want to make it they can, and probably should get accommodation by the business. Let someone else make it, hire a temp, 3rd party contract the cake out.

            If the business owner couldn’t sell to people of all creeds including those that support marriage regardless of the couple’s sexes, they wouldn’t have been making the offer to the public in the first place.

          • Randomutation

            “No one is forcing the anyone to create anything expressive”

            A wedding cake is expressive. And when you have someone punished by the state if they don’t make the wedding cake, it is the same as forcing them to do it. Your denial is worthless.
            So once again there is no civil right that allows you to force someone to create something that expresses an opinion they object to. If you claim such a “right” then you are claiming a special right. Blacks don’t claim any such a right. If they did, you would find it in the 5 decades of civil rights litigation in federal courts. Or you would find it in the writings of the NAACP, or in the speeches of Martin Luther King. Or somewhere in the history of the black civil rights struggle. But you don’t. ANYWHERE. It’s a special right.

          • Blake Paine

            In the same sense making a grilled cheese is expressive and if the business owner had a problem with selling grill cheese legally to the public they wouldn’t offer it.

            And no, the state is ‘punishing’ someone for making a fraudulent offer to the public, i.e. criminals. Every customer has a right to be able to buy any publicly advertised service or produce without civil rights discrimination, e.g. not because of creed, séx or sexual orientation, period. The owner admits to creed discrimination and denying weddings effectively discriminates those that have them as exercise of their fundamental right to marry.

            No one forced the business owner to make a fraudulent offer, they did that of their own volition.

            And your obsession with ‘federal court’ when these cases are all states rights issues. All you’ve found in federal rulings is that the business owner’s creed can’t be used to discriminate against customers, just like in this case.

            Again,
            you’re Amish and your creed says you can’t pay social security then don’t be an employer.

            you’re racist and say your creed won’t let you mix the races, then don’t run businesses that cater to the public.

            you’re Jehovah’s Witness and you can’t even use a license plate because of the ‘message’ that sends about accepting a state with the slogan ‘Live Free or Die’ then don’t drive a car.

            you’re a Christianist and think you can’t sell wedding services to the public no matter how the actual product looks while respecting their state civil rights then don’t offer those wedding services to the public.

            It really is that simple.

          • Randomutation

            The Amish lost, but the Jehovah’s Witness won. Each case is different. The Phillips case is closer to the Jehovah’s Witness case than it is to the Amish case. You have not found any case that is closer than that to the Phillips case. You have found no evidence for any “civil right” that allows you to force someone to create something that expresses an opinion they object to. If you claim such a “right” then you are claiming a special right. Blacks don’t claim any such a right. If they did, you would find it in the 5 decades of civil rights litigation in federal courts. Or you would find it in the writings of the NAACP, or in the speeches of Martin Luther King. Or somewhere in the history of the black civil rights struggle. But you don’t. ANYWHERE. It’s a special right.

          • Blake Paine

            No the Jehovah’s witnesses only ‘won’ that they didn’t have to show a particular written message, they still have to use a license plate. The similar situation would be that Masterpiece refused to do an actual design of cake but it doesn’t free them from having to give the customers a wedding cake without civil rights discrimination.

            Again no ‘force’ the business freely offered wedding cakes for sale to the public knowing that they couldn’t discriminate because of creed, even those creeds that have marriages the owner’s creed doesn’t.

            and your obsession with federal courts when these are state laws shod you just don’t understand the issues.

          • Randomutation

            “No the Jehovah’s witnesses only ‘won’ that they didn’t have to show a particular written message, they still have to use a license plate.”

            And that’s all they wanted – the right to cover up the motto. They won, hands down. They weren’t asking to be allowed to not use the license plate. The motto is expressive, while the rest of the license plate is functional. They did not object to the functional part – only the expressive part. Just like Phillips who did not object to selling any functional items (he offered to sell the same sex couple anything in his store). He only objected to creating something expressive. So yes, the Phillips case is very close to the license plate case (Wooley v Maynard). You have not found any case that is any closer than that.

          • Blake Paine

            And if the bakery was refusing something real like the slogan it might have a point. But they are rejecting the customer no matter what they actually wanted. The equivalent would be the JWs refusing to use any state license plate because the state’s motto exists at all.

            won’t sell me a gay wedding cake i’ll buy a straight one because they look the same. And the customer can use their purchase consistent with their own creed.

          • Randomutation

            “And if the bakery was refusing something real like the slogan it might have a point.”

            Lot’s of things are expressive without being a slogan. Our culture is chock full of symbolism that is just as expressive as the written word. A wedding cake falls in that category. Among other things, it expresses that the marriage is something good. And if the marriage is a same sex marriage then it expresses the opinion that same sex marriage is something good.

            “But they are rejecting the customer no matter what they actually wanted. ”

            No. Phillips offered to sell them anything in the store.

            “The equivalent would be the JWs refusing to use any state license plate because the state’s motto exists at all.”

            No, the equivalent would be if instead of the written motto, the state license used a symbol that was well known to represent some ideology that a driver objected to – like a Confederate flag.

            “won’t sell me a gay wedding cake i’ll buy a straight one because they look the same.”

            It may look the same, but message often depends on context. Raising your hand with the fingers forming a V for example can mean different things depending on context. If you want a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, then don’t tell the baker that that’s what it is for.

          • Blake Paine

            And since the discrimination is because of séx (the séx of one of the couple) a civil rights violation has occurred.

            The standard as I citied earlier is a civil right is “The right to be free from discrimination because of” the civil right category, directly or indirectly. If creed, séx, or sexual orientation is anywhere in the decision tree as to whether the customer is going to be allowed to purchase the publicly advertised product or service then a civil rights violation has occurred.

            If a wedding planner came in and said they were planning and purchasing all aspects of a wedding the business couldn’t ask what creed, séx or sexual orientation of anyone involved in the wedding at any level and couldn’t refuse the customer because they wouldn’t tell.

            The business must deal with the customer as if they were in a double blind test and treat them without discrimination because of any civil rights class.

          • Randomutation

            “And since the discrimination is because of séx (the séx of one of the couple) a civil rights violation has occurred.”

            The discrimination is NOT because of “sex of one of the couple.” You don’t even need a couple. You could have a celebration of same sex marriage even if there is no one actually getting married. And the baker or florist could turn down your request for a celebration of same sex marriage even if there is no one actually getting married. It’s the celebration that’s being refused. It’s not a person, and it’s not a couple. It’s the celebration of an idea that the baker or florist disagrees with.

          • Blake Paine

            No they can’t turn you down anymore than they could have a policy that they won’t mix races at a business even though everyone was at the time the same race. (Piggie Park Enterprises) Or a policy they won’t collect Social Security Tax even though they don’t as yet have any employees. (Lee)

            There is no right to refuse an activity that differs only from another activity by a civil rights class. The person is protected from both direct and indirect discrimination which would include contrived claims of being against the activity not the person.

          • Randomutation

            African Americans had real discrimination to face. Not pretend discrimination about hurt feelings. Enslaved for hundreds of years. Lynched with impunity for the killers. Starved, beaten, not allowed to vote. Denied decent jobs. Denied decent housing. Denied decent medical care. Denied decent education. Real discrimination. Not pretend discrimination about hurt feelings. Your comparison is an insult to them.

          • Blake Paine

            Lee said that the owner doesn’t have a right to force their beliefs on others and Piggy Park the same. And why you think that the people are happy in conjunction with their purchase is relevant is still a mystery. People have a right to any emotional state in relation to their purchase, makes no difference to the law.

          • Randomutation

            Straw man city

          • Blake Paine

            Yes the idea that the business can reject the customer because of the séx of someone at the wedding based on the owner’s creed is a strawman indeed. As Lee confirmed.

          • Blake Paine

            Why do you think state laws need a federal court ruling? (though you seem to have forgotten Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) the very best federal court ruling)

            States are allowed to have their own civil rights laws as per the 9th and 10th amendments. There aren’t any federal cases because they are handled at the state level and there is no appeal other than the SCOTUS by a writ of certiorari.

          • Randomutation

            What “state level” ruling are you talking about? Please cite a specific case or cases.

          • Blake Paine

            You mean the multiple state rulings that lead up to the appeal of writ of certiorari for Masterpiece Cakeshop, Arlene’s Flowers LLC & Elane Photography?

            Seriously?

          • Randomutation

            “You mean the multiple state rulings that lead up to the appeal of writ of certiorari for Masterpiece Cakeshop, Arlene’s Flowers LLC & Elane Photography?”

            No. If you run back through the conversation, you will see that I was asking about rulings that back up this claim by Michael:

            “For example, if a floral business had a long-time repeat customer who they had served for years who was black, and this black customer requested floral arrangements for their wedding to a white person, the floral business would not be permitted to refuse the order just because the owner of the business disagrees with interracial marriages. That would be considered discrimination on the basis of race.”

          • Blake Paine

            Ah, read from the Disqus page that doesn’t show anything other than your messages to me.

            Easiest case for that is federal case, Newell v Piggie Park Enterprises. Owner had both restaurant and drive-in BBQ establishments and had no problem with blacks at the restaurants since he could sit them inside where he wanted. His complaint was at the drive-in where they could choose their own location to park, possibly next to a white patron. This is similar to the many restaurants that would allow blacks in the seated dining area but wouldn’t let them sit themselves at the lunch counter for the same reason. The owner claimed that he should be able to discriminate by a civil rights class because of his ‘sincerely held belief that the races shouldn’t mix’.

            He lost. Got all the way to the SCOTUS on a subsequent liability matter but, just as in this thread’s case, the Justices could have taken it to address the ‘religious liberty’ issue. Appeal rejected unanimously.

            As you can see this is a case where a black customer was perfectly free to use some of the services of Piggie Park Enterprises, just not all of them. Even under federal law it was found discriminatory and state laws are even more protective than the federal ones.

          • Randomutation

            “Easiest case for that is a federal case, Newell v Piggie Park Enterprises. “

            The customers at Piggie Park were segregated strictly on the basis of their race – not because of anything they wanted to celebrate. No comparison to Arlene’s flowers of Masterpiece Cake, where the only issue was WHAT was being celebrated, not WHO wanted to do the celebrating.

          • Blake Paine

            These goal posts keep moving, don’t think I didn’t notice. if the business doesn’t want to celebrate marriages why on why is it selling marriage related services?

            The business owner is against the idea of the customer’s mixing, not their race using your very own framing. That wasn’t protected even though it is an idea just as valid as not wanting the same sexes to marry.

          • Randomutation

            “These goal posts keep moving, don’t think I didn’t notice. “

            Nope they are exactly where they were in my very first post. No federal court precedent that says discrimination against an idea or opinion is discrimination against a class. The failure to find a precedent does not mean the goal post has moved. It means the goal post has not been reached.

          • Blake Paine

            Actually Piggie Part does since that is about the idea of mixing races. These are your frames, everyone gets to use them.

          • Randomutation

            Nope. Square peg, round hole. Piggie Park turned all blacks away from the sandwich shop by the mere fact that they were black. Did he serve them when there were no white inside to mix with? And if so did he then turn away any whites who might show up while the blacks were being served? If not, then his claimed idea of not mixing the races doesn’t even hold up. To have a similar situation with Stutzman or Philips, you would need for them to have turned away gay customers even if the wedding cake they wanted was for the wedding of an opposite sex couple. Show me that and I’ll agree it’s like Piggie Park. Otherwise Piggie Park is a dead end.

          • Blake Paine

            You’ve twisted your argument around so many times you’ve lost your way.

            The Masterpiece Cakeshop & Arlene’s Flowers cases were about the business owner rejecting the customer’s purchase because of a ‘sincerely held opinion’ which is the same reason the Piggie Park owner was rejecting customers. In fact Piggie Park served people of all races as long as they could be prevented from mixing just as the wedding business would serve people of all sexual orientations as long as the wedding was for a mixed-séx couple.

            The first case is easily understood to be just racial discrimination as even you can see as is the second is just as obviously séx and sexual orientation discrimination for everyone not desperately trying to look away.

            Either the business sells food to the occupants of the car no matter the races it might contain and the business sells its wedding services no matter the sexes and sexual orientation of anyone involved or the are violating civil rights laws.

          • Randomutation

            Even at the drive ins, the policy did not jive at all with the excuse that the owner was religiously opposed to mixing of the races. The policy was a blanket refusal of car service to blacks – even if there were no whites in the lot to “mix” with or not. Blacks had to go to some kind of window, regardless of whether there were any whites in the car service area. You got that? Blacks were refused car service even when such service would not violate the owner’s stated intention of preventing the mingling of the races. Therefore, his stated intention was bogus. Had he serviced blacks when there were no whites in the lot, and turned away whites when there were blacks in the lot, he might have been able to claim a race neutral policy. But he didn’t do it that way. Contrast this with Stutzman or Phillips, who denied service ONLY when such service truly would violate their stated intention of not creating any wedding cake or flower arrangement that would be used to in celebrate same sex marriage. As long as they would sell wedding cakes to anyone (gay or straight) if the cake was to be used in the celebration of opposite sex marriage, their policy was nothing like the Piggie Park policy of turning away blacks even when they would not be mixing with whites. And if they would refuse to create wedding cakes for anyone (gay or straight) if the cake was to be used in the celebration of same sex marriage, their policy of was nothing like the Piggie Park policy of preventing mixing only by turning away blacks – not whites. In short, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

          • Blake Paine

            Even at the drive ins, the policy did not jive at all with the excuse that the owner was religiously opposed to mixing of the races. The operational policy was a blanket refusal of car service to blacks – even if there were no whites in the lot to “mix” with or not.

            Actually you don’t know that, its not even part of the record but it didn’t matter – there is no right for the business owner’s creed to prevent the public from accepting their freely made offer of sale any more than the Amish business owner can treat employees as if they shared his creed.

            Everyone has a constitutional right to not share the business owner’s creed and a civl right to buy even if they don’t share their creed and use their purchase in accordance with their own.

            Can’t sell something to all creeds then an offer the public is the wrong way to go.

          • Randomutation

            Here it is, right from the court transcript:
            ““Although defendants concede that they cater to white trade only and refuse to serve members of the Negro race at their restaurants for on-the-premises consumption of food, they stoutly maintain that they do not come within the coverage of Section 2000a(b) (2) and (c) (2) of the Act, infra note 2, because (1) they do not serve the public as required by the Act; (2) they are not principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; (3) they do not serve or offer to serve interstate travelers; and (4) they do not serve food, a substantial portion of which has moved in commerce.”

            You see that? Defendants concede they refuse to serve blacks for “on-the-premises consumption of food”. They didn’t serve blacks when there were no whites to mix with. So no, the excuse of preventing race mixing was bogus. He refused blacks whether there was any mixing or not.

          • MamaBearly

            Michael, I’m hoping you can help me understand something.
            Why can we not be allowed our beliefs, and go to someone who has no reason to not serve them, instead of suing? The ONLY thing that Christians don’t want to do is be involved in the weddings. Couldn’t those of us of faith have that one thing without all this fuss? I agree it’s not right to refuse, but is it right to force someone to do something? Why not just go to someone who will do their best for the wedding, and let us have that one piece of our faith. It’s really not a big deal when you know there are people who will do it without compromising their faith, is it? Most Christians will serve homosexuals for any other purpose, and if it is just that one thing. Why can’t we have it now that it is a law that you can get married and have equal rights (which I know will take a long time sadly). Isn’t it reasonable to be able to compromise for one thing, and sue for the other things people do for no other reason but hatred. Christians shouldn’t hate homosexuals, because it is their sin that is against their faith. But helping someone with any sin is against our faith, and to us, marriage is between opposite sexes. Why can’t there be that one compromise to get people to start getting along, rather than dividing them by forcing them to go against their beliefs?
            A lot of Christians are angry just about this one thing, so if the LGBTQs were to compromise on JUST the wedding thing, most of the problems between Christians and the LGBTQ’s would be eliminated and we could work together to get a better understanding of your needs and what we can do to help you attain those, rather than fight about that one thing in our faith we are not supposed to do?
            You know me, and you know I don’t agree with discrimination at all. But if it means more people will be willing to get along with people, wouldn’t the compromise be worth it?
            You see this is distressing to me because I understand both sides. Compromising is the one way everyone can get along and it helps both sides because if one side is cooperating (about that one thing) the other side will be more likely to cooperate as well. I don’t like when the people I care about are upset and in this case it’s people on both sides.
            I just want both sides to have what they need or want. LGBTQ’s have places that will do what they need done for weddings, can’t they just avoid the Christian businesses for weddings, and let us have this one thing of our faith?
            Compromising is the foundation of sides getting along. It is so much easier to live with than with all this hatred of each other. Discrimination is wrong, I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t see situations like these going away for a long long time without compromise. As long as Christians serve LGBTQs for other things, can the LGBTQ’s agree to leave Christians out of the wedding arrangements etc.
            It hurts my heart to see people fighting like this when this one compromise would stop most of it.
            Yes I know that there would be times that it would mean accepting the ‘best’ but everyone has to take second best at times. Even Christians.
            I’d really like your opinion of this idea.
            Blessings!

          • Blake Paine

            Actually most Christians will serve homosexuals legally for every purpose, these cases of are rare as hen’s teeth.

            If a business owner because of their beliefs can’t sell to people of all beliefs – even those that believe in same-séx marriages – why are the advertising to the public, a group comprised of all beliefs?

            There can be compromise – the business is totally free to operate as a private club and only offer wedding floral services to its membership. What they can’t to and effectively yell ‘Come on in and buy’ to everyone and then point at a responding customer and say ‘oh we didn’t mean you’.

            What Christian would even do such a thing?

          • MamaBearly

            My point is, why do people of faith have to change how they do business, when there are many other businesses that will do what needs to be done for a wedding?
            The whole idea of a compromise is to get along with each other.
            I support the LGBT movement for equality in every way, but I can’t see this problem going away and compromise is really the only way I can see it ending.
            Why should the faithful be the ones that have to change their way of life, when it could be “fixed” if they just were not asked in the first place. Which could be easily shown by putting a sign in the window stating it is a Christian business, right?
            I’m not trying to fight about it, I’m trying to put the idea out in hopes that it will give peace to everyone.
            Especially since it is only one thing and one thing alone that the faithful wants to be able to do, and that is about the weddings. Everything I’ve read basically says that Christians serve anything to the LGBT’s (except the real haters of course) so if they do every single other service, why can’t they be allowed to have that one service refused.

            It’s not like the case you stated because it’s not about offering it to everyone and “not you” like you mentioned. Weddings are personal and should be done by someone who wants the best for the couple. Christians are not supposed to do anything that abets a sin, and because we believe that homosexuality is a sin, weddings are the one thing they don’t want to do because of our faith.

            Maybe compare it to having it legal to carry a gun. Many people don’t believe it is a good idea, and protest, but there are rules and allowances for people who do think it’s a good idea.

            I don’t know if that will help anyone understand it or not, but I just want peace and love between Christians and LGBTQ’s and fighting about whether it’s right to refuse a (one) service for faith, is just not necessary anymore.

            TBH why would anyone want a Christian who is forced to serve them to do something so personal for them. I think most people who are forced have a hard time putting the feelings needed for a wedding into what they do, and that is not something anyone can sue for.

            I’m for the “Let’s all just get along” in every case.

            Blessings!

          • Blake Paine

            My point is, why do people of faith have to change how they do business, when there are many other businesses that will do what needs to be done for a wedding?

            Why were ‘people of faith’ ‘forced’ to allow black customers to be where they liked at lunch counters and drive-ins? would be a similar historical question.

            The reason is that the public, by completely constitutional means, has recognized that there should be no discrimination because of creed, sexes or sexual orientation when the public deals with a business.

            It’s not about what’s being purchased, it’s how the people are treated as the Washington Supreme Court in their ruling:

            We agree with Ingersoll and Freed that “This case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches.”

            There is no right to make a customer share the beliefs of the business owner to buy what they offer for sales.

            If they really feel the must discriminate by a civil rights class it is up to them to do it legally.

          • MamaBearly

            No it is not like the black situation. they do not want to do ONE sin, because that is what helping with a gay wedding is, and everyone gives two hoots; not likely. I am in no way trying to be discriminatory in this thread. It was a question directed at Michael C. to which he replied.
            The number of businesses back then were far less than they are today.
            Since their main stand on having gay rights, People everywhere have supported them. Christians should support them for equal rights. This is not about equal rights in that 1. there are other places to go to, including on the internet and 2. Having equal rights is not about their sin, or about whether they should have it. Everyone deserves equal rights.
            In line with that, I was asking Michael, whether the gays would be compromise and because it is against their faith, because they are able to go elsewhere now.
            Please understand me, I am a Christian that supports equal rights for gays. I cannot help them to sin, to obey God’s law. Marriage is between a man and a woman… that relationship was for reproducing and back then no one was likely to ask to marry someone of the same sex. Not at that time of ages. Regardless, to me, and I expect to hear from some of the posters here, I don’t look at being able to buy groceries, going to a restaurant, getting gas; these are things the gays shouldn’t even have to stand up especially to the point of having to make laws about it.
            My belief is that Everyone is a sinner. Our duty to Jesus is to spread the gospel and about Salvation and repentance. It is their free will that makes them choose to follow Jesus, and it is with the same free will, they will choose to follow Jesus and repent of all sins, being reborn, and living a Christian life. For me, as long as I know a gay is aware of the gospel, salvation, repentance and Jesus’ love, it it totally up to that person whether to repent or not. If they do not agree, we are supposed to walk away, wipe the dust from our hands, and not bother with them again. But I look at it that often something happens in their lives that makes them turn to Jesus. Sometimes it is just how it happens with some people. They learn about it and go away without committing to Jesus and eventually some come back. Jesus said everyone is to be offered salvation for following Him and repenting of their sins (etc).

            God gave us free will so we could choose to follow Him, and although the non-believers are damned, they do not receive punishment until Judgement days. God/Jesus is the only one who has the authority to Judge everyone because humans can only see the outside, while God can see the heart; which contains the truth of all things in their lives. God can see and does know whether you sin, or try not to sin, or just make the occasional mistake.

            I am not able to do more than encourage someone, I do not choose whether they want to repent, they choose.

            The only thing I can do after that is to go on to find someone else to introduce the gospel, Jesus’ love, Salvation and Repentance.

            I like to explain that to people I have not seen around here, or that don’t know my beliefs. I am not a typical Christian.

            God’s blessings!

          • Michael C

            This is not about equal rights in that 1. there are other places to go to, including on the internet and 2. Having equal rights is not about their sin, or about whether they should have it.

            This is where you and I stop seeing eye to eye.

            Public accommodations, by making an offer to the general public, have agreed to serve the public equally. All public accommodations have done this. We don’t just require some of them to obey the law. All of them must serve the general public without discrimination. We don’t have separate stores for Jews and Mexicans and lesbians and Muslims. A store cannot discriminate against Jews even if the shop next door doesn’t. No store can discriminate against customers just because they’re Jewish ever. Not ever. Not even if Jews can just go somewhere else.

            As for equal rights not being about sin, that’s also a matter of perspective. Most Christians believe that worshiping other gods is a sin yet public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of the customer’s sin of worshiping false gods or no gods at all. Also, as I said above, stores cannot discriminate just because the customer is in an interracial marriage even if the store owner believes that interracial relationships are a sin. What some people consider to be a “sin” is irrelevant to civil rights laws.

            It is not the responsibility of the customer to compromise. At all.

            It is the business owner who has made the offer. The customer is simply accepting an offer that has been made to them. It’s the sole responsibility of the business owner to compromise or amend their public offerings if they’re unwilling to serve all customers with respect to applicable civil rights laws.

          • Michael C

            Thank you for your heartfelt comment, MamaBearly.

            Why not just go to someone who will do their best for the wedding, and let us have that one piece of our faith.

            My first question would be this; Would you make the same request to an interracial couple?

            Would you say to an interracial couple “You can get married now, isn’t that enough? Why can’t you purchase a floral arrangement or wedding cake from someone who doesn’t oppose race-mixing on the grounds of their deeply held personal religious beliefs?”

            If you would not find this request acceptable, why not? How is it different, intellectually? I know it probably feels different to you, but is that just because of your perspective?

            Second, I don’t disagree with you and neither do most gay people. Like everyone else, I would want to support businesses who share my values.

            If this florist put a noticeable sign in her shop expressing her religious beliefs about homosexuality and marriage, the customer would never have made the request because he never would have been her customer in the first place. *and that’s precisely why she wouldn’t have posted such a sign*

            Another option would be for a business owner to tell a gay customer exactly how they feel about their wedding when asked for a product or service related to it. All they have to do is say “Of course I’ll serve you as I would any other customer, but I believe that your marriage is disgusting to God and you’ll surely find yourself in hell when you die.” The customer will turn around and walk out the door before the business owner even finishes the sentence.

            If a business owner offers a certain product or service to the general public, they should be prepared to sell it to everyone, we agree on this. If that business owner simply expresses their beliefs, gay customers (and a number of customers who support gay people) would take their business elsewhere. As long as the business owner remained willing to serve all customer’s without discrimination, it’s a safe bet that they would never have to serve another gay customer.

          • MamaBearly

            I don’t think it is any different than an interracial couple if the service is offered by someone who really doesn’t care either way. (Personally, I am not against interracial marriage – many people in the bible that married, could have been considered interracial.)

            As long as they are able to get the service, I just don’t think people should have to be forced.

            I wonder if they would leave if someone said that or sue them for saying it (because it is such a hateful thing to say).

            I just want the fighting to stop. It’s really hard on me (and any other Christian supporter of Equal rights for gays) because I understand both sides and I hate how it hurts so many people on both sides.

            This is not even about the people so much as it is about obeying our God. That is why Christians will do any other service without a problem. Our faith is very important to us, probably just as important to anyone who believes in keeping religion out of the Government.

            It’s only because of that one thing (marriage) and it is causing so much grief.

            I guess it’s beginning to feel like we are starting to not be allowed to keep our faith, because someone who is not of faith doesn’t approve of our beliefs, just as gays don’t like people who don’t approve of their relationships.

            I would never tell someone I think they are disgusting for any reason, and it would be hard for me to tell someone that I couldn’t do the service because of my faith only because it will hurt them. I will stand up for my faith when I have to, but so far I have not had to. (Other than here lol!)
            You are very kind to help me understand without condemnation. You are always the one I turn to about gay issues because I know you are up on what is going on in your community.
            God bless you Michael, and have a great day!

          • Blake Paine

            The standard of civil rights is ‘full enjoyment of all’ services the business offers without civil discrimination. No ‘most’ services, not ‘all but this’.

            What idea? Weddings? You can’t add a civil rights group refusal to the general category. The owner could no more say they were against the ‘idea’ of same-séx weddings than they could ‘Jewish weddings’, ‘black weddings’, or the rest. There are just weddings.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    calling evil good … and good evil …..

    In a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine, tech millionaire turned LGBTQ activist Tim Gill said he’s aiming to punish Christians who don’t want to participate in same-sex weddings.

    For more than two decades, the software programmer has poured an estimated $422 million into various gay rights causes. After the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal in all 50 states in 2015, Gill turned his attention and resources to targeting Christians.

    The election of Donald Trump, who claims to support gay rights but stocked his administration with anti-LGBTQ extremists, has only emboldened those looking to erase the gains of the past decade. Gill refuses to go on the defense. ‘We’re going into the hardest states in the country,’ he says. ‘We’re going to punish the wicked.’

  • Randomutation

    In the past, civil rights law dealt with discrimination against people. But now there is a dangerous new trend in which civil rights law is being leveraged to outlaw discrimination even against ideas. Some states are punishing bakers and florists for refusing to be instrumental in the celebration of same sex marriage. The state courts have rationalized this by invoking an “inextricable link”, or a “close correlation” between the idea and the people celebrating the idea. But I can find no precedent that justifies that sort of rationale in any federal court ruling, despite many decades of civil rights litigation in federal courts. And even if one accepts the rationale of invoking a link between the idea and the people celebrating the idea, the people who celebrate same sex marriage do not form a protected class, even in Colorado and Washington.

    • Michael C

      What would it be called if a wedding vendor refused service to a couple because of their strongly held religious opposition to the marriages of two people of different faiths?

      That would be called discrimination on the basis of religion and it’s illegal everywhere.

      What would it be called if a wedding vendor refused service to a couple because of their strongly held religious opposition to the marriages of two people of different races?

      That would be called discrimination on the basis of race and it’s illegal everywhere.

      What would it be called if a wedding vendor refused service to a couple because of their strongly held religious opposition to the marriages of two people of different sexes?

      That would be called discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and it’s illegal in only a minority of places in the United States. It’s actually 100% legal for stores and restaurants to refuse service to gay people in most of the US.

      • Randomutation

        I assume you mean that the vendor would serve the couple in any way except in celebrating opposite faith marriage or opposite race marriage or opposite sex marriage. And that he would also decline a similar request from anyone else of any faith or race or sex or sexual orientation. If that is what you mean, then please cite a ruling by a federal court in which the denial of such a request was ruled to be discrimination. I myself cannot find such a ruling.

        • Michael C

          I myself cannot find such a ruling.

          …but you seem to believe that it would be okay for the wedding vendor to refuse their services to these couples because there is “no precedent that justifies” requiring them to provide these services.

          Is that correct?

          • Randomutation

            You’re the one with the claim: “That would be called discrimination.” If there is no federal ruling that supports your claim, then the situation is exactly as I stated in my first post: punishing a business for discrimination against an idea is a new leveraging of civil rights law that is unsupported by any precedent in any federal court.
            There is on the other hand precedent from the Supreme Court that says a person cannot be compelled to be instrumental in the expression of an idea that the person objects to (Wooley v Maynard for example). It is that and similar precedent upon which I base my argument that a baker or florist can refuse to be instrumental in the celebration of something the baker or florists objects to. If you think this precedent is overridden by some other rule, then the burden of proof is on you to cite the ruling that overrides it.

          • Michael C

            We have at least a dozen cases of public accommodations that have been found in violation of nondiscrimination laws for refusing to provide their otherwise available wedding services to gay couples.

            Dozens of judges civil rights commissions have interpreted non-discrimination laws to apply in this manner.

            The Supreme Court declined to hear one such case allowing a state Supreme Court ruling against the business owner stand.

            Frankly, I find it dumbfounding that you would believe that a wedding vendor would be permitted to refuse service to an interracial couple despite clear laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race.

          • Randomutation

            “We have at least a dozen cases of public accommodations that have been found in violation of nondiscrimination laws for refusing to provide their otherwise available wedding services to gay couples.”

            If you are referring to rulings in state court, then you are referring to the very rulings whose validity is currently being questioned. Supporting the state rulings by referencing the state rulings is just circular reasoning.

            “Frankly, I find it dumbfounding that you would believe that a wedding vendor would be permitted to refuse service to an interracial couple despite clear laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race.”

            Your statement is a logically fallacious argument known as “argument from incredulity”. There have been over 5 decades of of civil rights litigation in federal courts since the 1964 civil rights act and the 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v VA. If it is illegal to decline creating a wedding cake or flower arrangement for the celebration of interracial marriage (while serving interracial couples in all other services), then you should be able to find a federal court ruling that supports that claim. I would agree that it would be reprehensible for a vendor to do so. But reprehensible and illegal are two different things.

          • Michael C

            Discriminating against someone because you oppose interracial marriage is discrimination on the basis of race.

            There is precedent in federal courts to support this fact. Bob Jones University is just one example of this. See also Parr vs. Woodman of the World Life Ins.

          • Randomutation

            “There is precedent in federal courts to support this fact. Bob Jones University is just one example of this.”

            The Supreme Court weighed the religious freedom of Bob Jones University against the government’s “interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education,” and decided that the government’s interest was “overriding”. It is highly unlikely that they will rule that the inconvenience of going to a different baker or florist for help with a celebration is serious enough to “override” not just religious freedom but also freedom of speech.

            “See also Parr vs. Woodman of the World Life Ins.”

            Parr v Woodman involved discrimination in employment, which – as in the Bob Jones case – justifies a much more compelling level of government interest than cake.

            But I congratulate you on at least finding actual cases that we can discuss and compare.

          • Michael C

            You’re ignoring your own basic question of whether or not discrimination against interracial relationships is considered discrimination on the basis of race.

          • Randomutation

            “You’re ignoring your own basic question of whether or not discrimination against interracial relationships is considered discrimination on the basis of race.”

            That wasn’t my question. I asked whether discrimination against the CELEBRATION of interracial relationships (marriage) is considered discrimination on the basis of race. The context being that no one (interracial couple or not) would be granted a request for the creation of something that would celebrate interracial marriage. The further you deviate from that question, the less relevant your argument is wrt the Stutzman and Phillips cases.

          • Blake Paine

            Well as Scalia noted an activity closely associated with a protected class is also protected “a tax against yarmulkes is a tax against Jews”, ditto weddings or same-sex couples and sexual orientation. And since civil rights is about being free from discrimination because of ‘sexes, creeds, and sexual orientations, directly or indirectly the customer is protected in multiple ways.

            Being straight is protected and celebrations about being straight are protected, even if they are called weddings.

            Ditto gay.

          • Randomutation

            “Well as Scalia noted an activity closely associated with a protected class is also protected “a tax against yarmulkes is a tax against Jews””

            You need to read the entire context in which that yarmulke comment appears. It actually says just the opposite of what you think. It says that intent against an activity is generally NOT considered intent against a group closely associated with the activity, unless the activity is “an irrational object of disfavor”. As such SCOTUS ruled that intent against abortion did NOT constitute intent against women even though abortion is closely associated with women.

          • Blake Paine

            No, you re-read it, the reason he said it wasn’t discrimination against women was because there are many woman against abortion.

            Not the case for marriage and creed and sexual orientation.

          • Randomutation

            Here is the direct quote from the SCOTUS ruling:
            “Opposition to abortion cannot reasonably be presumed to reflect a sex-based intent; there are common and respectable reasons for opposing abortion other than a derogatory view of women as a class. “
            There it is. Intent against an activity does not prove intent against a class even though the class is closely associated with that activity. Therefore, your attempt to use Bray to support your position fails. Just like your attempt to use Piggie. Just like your attempt to use Lee. None of them say that discrimination against an idea or opinion constitutes discrimination against a class of people.

          • Blake Paine

            You just repeated what I had said. There has to be more than close association, the animus must be there too. Too many women are against abortion to be considered as intimate as yarmulkes and Jews.

            In contrast it’s almost 1:1 for support for marriage and creed and same for marriage and sexual orientation.

          • Randomutation

            No. What the Supreme Court said was that intent against an activity closely associated with a class implies animus against the class if there is no reasonable explanation other than animus.

          • Blake Paine

            And since the defendants freely expressed creed animus that’s an admission of civil rights discrimination.

          • Randomutation

            No. Animus against creed and animus against the class who believes the creed are not the same thing.

          • Blake Paine

            Since the creed includes same-séx marriage that’s a difference that isn’t a difference, but thanks for admitting that the animus is the civil rights class.

            Everyone has a right to have a creed that includes black marriages, interfaith marriages, interracial marriages and marriages of couples regardless of séx and the business owner’s knew that before they made the offer to the public.

          • Randomutation

            Even if someone’s “creed includes same-séx marriage”, Scalia’s yarmulke comment does not apply to animus against creeds or activities unless they are “such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. “

          • Blake Paine

            Which targeting marriages with same-séx couples does for sexual orientation and those with the creed that allows marriages regardless of their sexes. The standard of to avoid that is allowing ‘full enjoyment of any’ services the business offers, disallowing that shows animus of the classes.

          • Randomutation

            Same sex marriages are not “”such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. “

          • Blake Paine

            Actually since in this the case before the supreme court and this case the owners freely admit that their bias is based on religious prejudice you are very much wrong. And marriage involving same-séx couples is far more exclusive to sexual orientation prejudice than the example of ‘yarmulkes’ since most Jews don’t even wear them.

          • Randomutation

            You may as well say that they “admit their bias” against pornography “is based on religious belief.” So what if it is? That doesn’t make opposition to pornography irrational. To fit anti-pornography under Scalia’s yarmulke example, one would need to show that religious belief against pornography is so irrational that it can only be presumed to be an excuse to target and disfavor a class of people. And to fit opposition to same sex marriage under Scalia’s yarmulke example you would need to show that opposition to same sex marriage is so irrational that it can only be assumed to be an excuse to target and disfavor a class of people.

          • Blake Paine

            Sorry, you are trying to make the use of the word ‘irrational’ mean something that it obviously doesn’t mean in Scalia’s example. Using your twisting then a ‘tax on yarmulkes’ wouldn’t be a tax on Jews either.

            And since we are talking about a business that refuses to sell essentially identical items to a customer solely because of a civil rights quality of the customer, that is equally as irrational.

            And since there is only ‘marriage’ the argument falls apart. The customer’s didn’t ask for a ‘same-séx marriage’ service, they wanted to buy the advertised wedding services. Again, you don’t make same-séx wedding cakes, I’ll buy one of the multi-séx wedding cakes and use that for my same-séx wedding – they still look the same.

          • Randomutation

            Wrong. Scalia never said and the Supreme Court has never ruled that religious beliefs are irrational. But even if you were allowed to arbitrarily label opposition to SSM as “irrational”, you would still need to show that opposition to same sex marriage can only be assumed to be an excuse to target and disfavor a class of people. So either way your desperate attempt to somehow fit this case with Scalia’s yarmulke example fails dismally.

          • Blake Paine

            Considering most Jewish religion prejudice is religious based you are just responding with your blinders tightly on. But the very using of Jews and their closely related actions Scalia was obviously including religious prejudice as irrational. You are clinging to that word when the very example shows it has a looser interpretation that fits your agenda.

          • Randomutation

            Wrong. If your theory were true, then the anti-abortionists in that case would have lost. Because there was no doubt that their opposition to abortion was based on religious belief. But they won. Which shows that the court concluded that their opposition to abortion was not irrational even though it was clearly religiously based. Your theory is thus nothing but nonsense.

          • Blake Paine

            No, the anti-abortionists lost because there is no intimate relationship between the séx of the protestor and the event which federal statutes require. Many of the anti-abortionists were women, far too many to say that being against abortions is animus against women.

            Your straw man just doesn’t stand up –

            Whatever one thinks of abortion, it cannot be denied that there are common and respectable reasons for opposing it, other than hatred of, or condescension toward (or indeed any view at all concerning), women as a class-as is evident from the fact that men and women are on both sides of the issue, just as men and women are on both sides of petitioners’ unlawful demonstrations.

            There are not people who’s creeds support marriage regardless of sexes on both sides of this issue, that would be silly. And of course, both Colorado and Washington do not require animus against the class itself but that discrimination using these qualities.

            The customer has a right to their own creed, they have a right to be any darn séx they want, and they have a right to be any sexual orientation and still buy the publicly advertised service.

          • Randomutation

            ““No, the anti-abortionists lost because there is no intimate relationship between the séx of the protestor and the event which federal statutes require.”

            LOL. The anti-abortionists did not lose. They won. Thank you for demonstrating your complete ignorance about the very subject on which you have been pontificating.

          • Blake Paine

            yeah a mis spoke makes it all irrelevant. Grow up and read ‘the side that lost and deal with the content of the message.

            That you revel in a simple mistake just shows your character.

          • Randomutation

            Like the “simple mistake” (heh, heh) when you surgically removed Scalia’s yarmulke comment right out of its context to try and make it sound like it said something it did not.
            Like the “simple mistake” when you falsely claimed that Scalia considered religious beliefs to be irrational.
            Like the “simple mistake” when you claimed the Court ruled that abortion was not closely associated with women.
            Like the “simple mistake” when you falsely claimed that the Piggie Park owner serviced blacks in it’s sit-down restaurant
            Like the “simple mistake” when you falsely claimed that Stutzman and Phillips had admitted to discrimination,
            What we have here with all your “simple mistakes” is a clear pattern of misdirection and obfuscation. And it gets no better, even if we do read it as “the side that lost.” Because the court did not rule in Bray that women are not closely associated with abortion. You had two errors in the same sentence.

          • Blake Paine

            Most of those the only mistake is your understanding. Religious prejudice is by definition ‘irrational’ since it is based on faith. Since anti-Semitism is religious prejudice if Scalia thought S you claim he wouldn’t have used that example at all.

            And i just quoted to you where Scalia exlained why abortion doesn’t meet the requirements of close association but you went on a pedantic rant and ignored it. i’m on my phone now so how about going back and reading it this time.

            Whatever one thinks of abortion, it cannot be denied that there are common and respectable reasons for opposing it, other than hatred of, or condescension toward… women as a class – as is evident from the fact that men and women are on both sides of the issue, just as men and women are on both sides of petitioners’ unlawful demonstrations.

            And since both Stutzman and Phillips told the customers they were being refused because of their religious prejudices it seems you’re the one mistaken.

          • Randomutation

            “Since anti-Semitism is religious prejudice”

            No it’s not. Only in some cases is Antisemitism religiously base. For some anti-semites it’s about the culture. For others, it’s about the bloodline. For others it’s about land and wealth. For still others it’s about envy. And for others it might just be historical grudges that go back many generations. Had the court wanted to declare religious belief as irrational, they would have done so. Your attempt to squeeze out this hidden meaning via some sort of Scalia code is downright laughable. Maybe you should read it backwards at slow speed and see if you find any more hidden messages.

          • Blake Paine

            As usual you worm around trying to make it so Scalia’s example would never apply to anyone. Obvious and unconvincing.

            Actually it didn’t – too many women are against abortion for being against it to show animus against women. Read it again.

            And only people have ideas, to say a person’s creed is protected from discrimination and the ideas that comprise it aren’t is ridiculous.

            If they are refusing the person’s creed that is discrimination.

          • Randomutation

            “As usual you worm around trying to make it so Scalia’s example would never apply to anyone. ”

            No. Scalia’s example applies exactly where he said it did: “Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed.” Thus he state two conditions that must be satisfied:
            1) Disfavoring the activity. has to be a very irrational thing to do
            2) The activity is engaged in “exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people”
            Abortion is engaged in exclusively by women. So #2 is easily satisfied. Therefore if the Supreme Court thought that religious belief was very irrational, then #1 would also have been satisfied since the protesters’ animus against abortion was based on religious belief. And therefore SCOTUS would have decided against the anti-abortionists. But they didn’t. Therefore they did not deem that religious belief is irrational.

            “And only people have ideas….”

            So #2 is satisfied (having ideas is an activity exclusively engaged in by people). But you still have to show #1. And your claim that religious belief itself is sufficient has just been shown to be untrue.

          • Blake Paine

            This might help your confusion:

            yarmulkes and Jews

            while not all Jews wear yarmulkes there are few Jews against other Jews wearing them whether they choose to wear one or not and some Jews feel they must wear yarmulkes.

            So a burden on yarmulkes is a burden on Jews.

            marriage and sexual orientation.

            while not all of a sexual orientation marry marriage is a fundamental right and few people of a sexual orientation think that people of their sexual orientation shouldn’t be able to marry and some of a sexual orientation feel they must marry.

            So a burden on marriage is a burden on sexual orientation.

            marriage and creed.

            Though not all holders of a creed marry marriage is a fundamental right and few of a creed are against those of their creed having a marriage consistent with their creed and some of a creed feel they must marry.

            So a burden on marriage is a burden on creed.

            In contrast:

            abortion and women

            Many women would not have an abortion, and would not want other women to have abortion. Women as a class do not have a set opinion about abortion and so there is no civil rights correlation.

            See the difference?

          • Randomutation

            You’re spinning your wheels. SCOTUS has stated that close association by itself is not enough to establish animus. If we taxed yarmulkes because they were being made by slave labor, that would not constitute animus against Jews. It might be animus against slaveholders, but not against Jews.

          • Blake Paine

            Twist Justices Scalia’s analogy all you want, marriage is closely associated with creed and sexual orientation.

            As Obergefell established the sexes of the marrying couple is closely associated with sexual orientation. And the defendant’s complaints do the same for creed.

            By virtue of the customer’s creed and sexual orientation marriage and weddings can not be discriminated in a public offer.

          • Randomutation

            No, I’m using the exact argument argument that Scalia used. You surgically lifted the yarmulke comment out of its context in order to twist it. Here it is, in context:
            ” Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. But opposition to voluntary abortion cannot possibly be considered such an irrational surrogate for opposition to (or paternalism towards) women. Whatever one thinks of abortion, it cannot be denied that there are common and respectable reasons for opposing it, other than hatred of, or condescension toward (or indeed any view at all concerning), women as a class-as is evident from the fact that men and women are on both sides of the issue, just as men and women are on both sides of petitioners’ unlawful demonstrations.”
            There it is. The yarmulke silver bullet you tried to employ is only valid when the activities are “such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed.” Otherwise, no.

          • Randomutation

            SCOTUS noted in Bray that intent against an activity does not prove intent against a class even though the class is closely associated with that activity. Here is the direct quote from the SCOTUS ruling:
            “Opposition to abortion cannot reasonably be presumed to reflect a sex-based intent; there are common and respectable reasons for opposing abortion other than a derogatory view of women as a class. “
            There it is. Intent against an activity does not prove intent against a class even though the class is closely associated with that activity. Therefore, your attempt to use Bray to support your position fails. Just like your attempt to use Piggie. Just like your attempt to use Lee. None of them say that discrimination against an idea or opinion constitutes discrimination against a class of people.

          • Blake Paine

            No read it again, he was agreeing that if it had been closely associated that would be the interpretation. But too many women are themselves against abortion for it to be considered so.

            Unlike marriage, creed and sexual orientation.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “If you are referring to rulings in state court, then you are referring to the very rulings whose validity is currently being questioned. Supporting the state rulings by referencing the state rulings is just circular reasoning.”

            We’re not arguing in favor of the rulings. Rulings don’t need to be supported. They exist and are enforceable until they’re superseded by a higher court. To explain the law you just say what the latest ruling is. You don’t need more than that.

            “If it is illegal to decline creating a wedding cake or flower arrangement for the celebration of interracial marriage (while serving interracial couples in all other services), then you should be able to find a federal court ruling that supports that claim.”

            That’s not how case law works. If a statute exists, it’s legal until ruled otherwise. If we can’t find a ruling that says “X law is unconstitutional,” then it’s not.

            As a bit of general, friendly advice, I would strongly recommend you tone down the smug, self-congratulatory attitude, at least until you figure out how the things work that you’re opening on.

          • Randomutation

            “We’re not arguing in favor of the rulings. Rulings don’t need to be supported. They exist and are enforceable until they’re superseded by a higher court.”

            Yeah, but if all you’ve got is those recent rulings in those few states, then you’re just validating the exact point I made with my very first post. This is a new interpretation of civil rights law that now makes it illegal to “discriminate” against ideas. The fact that the recent state rulings cannot be supported by any precedent other than some other recent state ruling shows just how new and unprecedented this leveraging of civil rights law is. The state courts have tried to rationalize it by invoking an “inextricable link” or a “close correlation” between the idea and the people who want to celebrate the idea (that same sex marriage is something good). But no one has been able to justify this rationalization. No one has even been able to show that the group of people who want to celebrate same sex marriage is a protected class.

            “If a statute exists, it’s legal until ruled otherwise. If we can’t find a ruling that says “X law is unconstitutional,” then it’s not.”

            There is already a ruling by SCOTUS that says it is unconstitutional for the state to compel a person to be instrumental in the expression an idea they object to (Wooley v Maynard for example). So, if there is no ruling that says that this protection is overridden when the idea being expressed is “closely correlated” or “inextricably linked” to some group of people, then the state rulings are unconstitutional unless shown otherwise.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “This is a new interpretation of civil rights law that now makes it illegal to “discriminate” against ideas.”

            No, it’s not an “idea” standing in Stuzman’s shop asking for a cake. It’s two living, breathing, human beings of the same sex asking for the same thing that if they had been opposite sex couples, they would receive.

            “So, if there is no ruling that says that this protection is overridden when the idea being expressed is “closely correlated” or “inextricably linked” to some group of people, then the state rulings are unconstitutional unless shown otherwise.”

            No, because compelling a store owner to serve a class of people has nothing to do with Wooley v. Maynard. Compelling all residents, whether they own a business or not, to display a pro-government sticker on their car is not analogous to compelling a person who already chose to set up a business to serve a certain class of people. The fact that it’s a wedding business is irrelevant.

          • Randomutation

            “No, it’s not an “idea” standing in Stuzman’s shop asking for a cake. It’s two living, breathing, human beings of the same sex asking for the same thing that if they had been opposite sex couples, they would receive.”

            Stutzman did not discriminate against “two living, breathing, human beings of the same sex”. Stutzman “discriminated” against celebrating same sex marriage. No, an opposite sex couple requesting her to create a floral arrangement for the celebration of same sex marriage would not likely have fared any better. It was never a question of WHO they were. The issue was always WHAT they wanted to celebrate.

            “No, because compelling a store owner to serve a class of people has nothing to do with Wooley v. Maynard. “

            Compelling her to be instrumental in the celebration of an idea she objects to has everything to do with Wooley v Maynard. And since the “class of people” she won’t do that for is everyone, your statement amounts to the absurd notion of the state compelling her to do something for everyone that she otherwise would not choose to do for anyone. That’s one very powerful state there.

          • Blake Paine

            If these cases were about same-sex cake toppers or rainbow designs, you might have a case with Wooley v Maynard but neither of these cases are about the design or any message of the actual thing being purchased.

            That would be the case of the plaintiff saying the equivalent of they didn’t have to buy automobile licenses at all because they don’t like the state funds Planned Parenthood and buying a license is making them instrumental in the expression of supporting the state.

            If some business aid they didn’t do gay wedding floral arrangements I’d just smile and say ‘great, I’ll take straight ones then.’ (fyi: they really do look exactly the same)

          • Randomutation

            “If these cases were about same-sex cake toppers or rainbow designs, you might have a case with Wooley v Maynard but neither of these cases are about the design or any message of the actual thing being purchased.”

            I’m glad we at least agree that the baker has a case when the cake (or flower arrangement) would bear an explicit expression the baker objects to. The difference then is that I contend that wedding cakes carry an implicit message regardless of whether or not there is anything explicit. I’ve been to many weddings and I have seen many wedding cakes, and every wedding cake I’ve seen conveys at least the message that the marriage is something good. The same cakes at a same sex wedding would convey the message that same sex marriage is something good. Same with the flower arrangements. As far as I can tell, it is that implicit message that Stutzman and Phillips object to in the creation of their flower arrangements and cakes.

          • Blake Paine

            Just like Piggie Park Enterprises objected to the idea mixing of the races was good. This seems to be convincing to certain people but its like they’ve all drunked from the same dixie cup of Kool-Aid without reading the existing rulings by courts. Everyone has an ‘idea’ they are against as the basis of all civil right discrimination, they always have. That the business is against an idea that just happens to require civil rights discrimination has been a failed argument every time it has gone to a court, federal and state, usually by unanimous rulings.

            Again, if the wedding cake is a ‘message’ they can only sell to certain people then making an invitation to the public is the wrong way to go. If they only sell ‘straight message’ wedding flowers then that’s what I’ll be buying and using for my gay wedding. A business can only sell Kosher food but the customer has a right to buy it and put it with a nice couple slices of bacon if they choose.

          • Randomutation

            Nope. Piggie Park just as irrelevant as before. Customers not asking for celebration of anything. Just lunch. Piggie Park customers were accommodated or denied strictly according to class – not on anything they wanted to celebrate. Therefore, relevance to Arlene’s equals zero. Relevance to Masterpiece equals zero. If Piggie Park is all you’ve got then its game over.

          • Blake Paine

            No one is asking the business to celebrate anything. They are a vendor like the person who rents the chairs. And there is no right to refuse someone because they’ll have s good time with their purchase.

            Your red herring has rotted, it hasn’t worked in any court and won’t fool any competent judge.

          • Michael C

            And there is no right to refuse someone because they’ll have a good time with their purchase.

            This.

            Also, the customer does not invite the business to share in their “good time” simply by purchasing their product or service.

            Were this the case, there’d be a lot more mattress salesmen.

          • Randomutation

            The wedding cake is a symbolic and expressive component of the wedding. Creating the cake makes the baker in instrumental in expressing the message of the celebration. You can’t get out of it by splitting hairs about whether that’s the same as celebrating. Because it makes no difference. Being instrumental is sufficient.

          • Blake Paine

            This isn’t about the baker it’s about a service freely offered to the public by the bakery.

            If an employee of the bakery wants religious accommodation it doesn’t relieve the bakery of fulfilling its legal obligations

          • Randomutation

            The bakery never “freely offered to the public” any wedding cakes for the celebration of same sex marriage. It never offered them to customers who were straight, so why should it offer them to customers who are gay? That would just be special rights for gays.

          • Blake Paine

            Actually the business advertised their availability to the public just as Arlene’s Flowers offered the public custom wedding floral services. Neither offered just ‘straight’ wedding services since that would be as illegal as offering just ‘white’ weddings.

            There are just weddings and either the public can buy them for their own use without discrimination of civil rights or they shouldn’t have been offered to the public in the first place.

          • Randomutation

            They never offered to create wedding cakes or flower arrangements for the celebration of same sex marriage. Yes they discriminate against the opinions that some people wanted to celebrate – just as I’ve said all along. But you have failed to find any precedent in any federal court that says discriminating against people’s opinion is the same as discriminating against people. You failed when you were caught red handed trying to surgically remove Scalia’s yarmulke quote out of its context. You tried Piggie Park, but that failed because he did not discriminate against black people’s opinions, he just flat out discriminated against black people, period. You tried Lee, but Lee did not even involve a charge of discrimination.

          • Blake Paine

            There are only marriages, not ‘black’ marriages, not ‘Southern Baptist approved’ marriages, not ‘multisex’ marriages, not ‘same-séx’ marriages. Can’t add a civil rights class to the name and then make it an ‘opinion’ or a different type of marriage when there is no qualitative difference in the usage of the product offered to the public. Denying identical services for their marriage merely because of a civil rights class is illegal in Colorado, Oregon, Washington state.

            The prejudice against the class is supported by Scalia’s example, since marriages where the couple are the same séx shows “disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed.” No presumption necessary the business owner specifically stated it was because of religious prejudice against that class of people. Marriages of couples is far more intimately related to sexual orientation than even yarmulkes and Jews.

            Piggie Park was about an opinion and an action that did allow blacks to use some of its offered facilities if they maintained the ‘opinion’ that the races should be separate.

            Lee showed that a business owner cannot impose their faith on others.

            And by the federal government letting the ruling stand it has been through the only federal review necessary to make it settled law.

            If you’re Amish and you truly feel you can’t collect social security you don’t act as an employer.
            If you’re beliefs say you can’t let the races mix then you don’t run businesses where that might happen.
            If your beliefs say you can’t sell wedding services to members of a group and respect their right to be free from discrimination because of their creed, séx, or sexual orientation then don’t offer wedding services to that group.

            This isn’t about an ‘opinion’.

          • Randomutation

            I see that you changed the phrase “irrational object of disfavor” to “disfavor”. Don’t you get tired of being caught red-handed blatantly doctoring what Scalia actually said?
            Piggie Park based service on race, period. Not on what anyone wanted to celebrate. Relevance to Stutzman or Phillips is therefore zero.
            All Lee showed was that the government can restrict your freedom of religion if it there is a vital national interest at stake (in this case the soundness of the social security system). It says nothing about whether discriminating against an opinion equals discrimination against people. It’s relevance to Stutzman and Phillips is therefore also equal to zero. Strike 3.

          • Blake Paine

            They owners freely admit their ‘disfavor’ is just as irrationally based as anti-semitism and for the same reasons most anti-semitic people give – religious prejudice.

            No, no period. Just as with these cases the defendants tried to rationalize their discrimination by calls to a right to religious prejudice. Its as much about race as it is sexual orientation in reality I agree.

            No Lee shows more than that by its very ruling. The business doesn’t have a right to treat others as if they shared their religious faith especially if it is to there detriment.

            Not strike 3, you just don’t know the rules of the game.

          • Randomutation

            No, they do not “admit their ‘disfavor’ is just as irrationally based as anti-semitism”. You may as well claim that they “admit their ‘disfavor’ of pornography is irrational because it’s based on their religious belief.

          • Blake Paine

            No one asked for pornography, they asked to buy wedding services that the public was freely invited to come buy.

            Won’t sell pornography to the public – that’s not illegal discrimination.
            Won’t sell advertised wedding services some of the public because of civil rights – that’s discrimination.

            Either they do sell wedding services to the public for the customer to use according their creed or they don’t – pick one.

          • Blake Paine

            If you are referring to rulings in state court, then you are referring to the very rulings whose validity is currently being questioned.

            Actually Elane Photography is not under question at all, but all the way through the appeal process state and federal. Its established law.

          • Randomutation

            “Actually Elane Photography is not under question at all, been all the way through the appeal process state and federal. Its established law.”

            No. No federal court has ruled on it. SCOTUS merely declined to rule on it. They don’t have time to rule on every appeal that reaches them, and consequently they simply turn away a lot of appeals without issuing any opinion on the case one way or the other. The highest ruling on it is still the New Mexico State Supreme Court.

            “All civil rights cases support this claim since the discrimination is because of a civil rights class. Title II of the civil rights act says:
            All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

            Title II specifically protects “person”, not opinions, not ideas. And historically, civil rights law was used only to punish discrimination against persons, not discrimination against ideas or opinions. Only the recent cases in a few states punish discrimination against opinions and ideas, No one here has been able to find any ruling in any federal court where discrimination against opinions and ideas was ruled illegal under civil rights law. Only state rulings (and recent ones at that).

          • Blake Paine

            Lee was about opinions and ideas, the Amish interpretation of the what Christianity requires and allows vs the opinions of the state and the employees. Piggie Park Enterprises was about the ‘opinion and idea’ that the races can mix vs the business owner’s that they can’t.

            That the business owner doesn’t want to ’support’ these opinions has not been viable before, no reason to think they now.

            Honestly it just sounds like a way to squirm around the fact that the person wants to avoid a certain activity or event that the customers and employees have a right to engage in.

          • Randomutation

            Lee and Piggie Park are completely irrelevant. No customer was asking to celebrate anything. In Piggie Park they just wanted lunch, no celebration of anything. Without celebration Piggie Park = totally Irrelevant. Lee even more irrelevant.

          • Blake Paine

            So your differentiating characteristic is if the customer will be enjoying their purchase? Like a meal of fine drive-in BBQ? Or knowing that their retirement is being funded?

            You must realize this ‘celebration’ restriction is useless and doesn’t do what you think it does.

          • Randomutation

            From Merriam Webster:

            celebrated; celebrating
            transitive verb
            1: to perform (a sacrament or solemn ceremony) publicly and with appropriate rites A priest celebrates Mass.
            2a : to honor (an occasion, such as a holiday) especially by solemn ceremonies or by refraining from ordinary business The nation celebrates Memorial Day.
            b : to mark (something, such as an anniversary) by festivities or other deviation from routine celebrated their 25th anniversary
            3: to hold up or play up for public notice her poetry celebrates the glory of nature

            Definition 2a is probably the best fit, especially the word “honor”.

          • Blake Paine

            So any party? As we know Masterpiece Cakeshop was just a party, the marriage would have occurred days befor else where.

            A difference that is no difference. Using your reasoning the atheist owned bakery could refuse to sell rolls because they are being used for a Christmas dinner.

            Not convinced, neither would any court.

          • Randomutation

            If an atheist baker refused to sell me rolls for Christmas dinner, I would respect his wishes. I would rather simply go to a different baker than to have anyone violate their principles on my behalf. Any decent person would simply respect the wishes of the atheist.

          • Blake Paine

            Yeah, you don’t like civil rights, that’s been clear but not the point.

          • Randomutation

            There is no “civil right” that allows me to force someone to be instrumental in promoting my opinion. And if there were such a “right” I would not exercise it. Only elitists who think they are entitled to special rights and special privileges would do such a thing.

          • Blake Paine

            And this is about a business, not ‘me’. No forcing necessary, ‘you’ voluntarily invited the public to come and buy your wares knowing full well that involved treated them without discrimination, giving them ‘full enjoyment of any’ service you offered to the public regardless of their creed, sexes, or sexual orientation as well as race, color, ethnicity, and more. ‘You’ even had it in your employee manual that was how you operated.

          • Randomutation

            And when you decline to service the celebration of some idea or opinion for anyone “regardless of their creed, sexes, or sexual orientation as well as race, color, ethnicity, . . ” you are neither violating your employee manual, nor are you discriminating due to anyone’s “creed, sexes, or sexual orientation as well as race, color, ethnicity”.

          • Blake Paine

            Same lame excuse the Piggie Park guy did when he said it was his job to prevent the races from mixing.

            Nope, a business can’t decide what their product can be used for by a customer because of a civil rights class. No one is asking the business to celebrate anything.

          • Randomutation

            Nope. Piggie Park owner turned away all blacks for on-the-premises consumption of food simply because they were black. NOTHING AT ALL LIKE STUTZMAN OR PHILLIPS. And he turned away blacks even when serving them would not have violated his no-race-mixing belief. NOTHING AT ALL LIKE STUTZMAN OR PHILLIPS. And he turned blacks away even if they did not want him to create anything that would express a celebration of race mixing. NOTHING AT ALL LIKE STUTZMAN OR PHILLIPS. In short PIGGIE PARK = NOTHING AT ALL LIKE STUTZMAN OR PHILLIPS. Zero relevance.

          • Blake Paine

            No, Piggie Park cloaked their dislike of blacks mixed with whites with an excuse of religious prejudice. Remember, it allowed blacks in their sit down restaurants, just not the drive-ins.

            No turning away gays from part of their operation is exactly like Stutzman and Phillips doing the same the same for customers of their freely advertised wedding services. Both used the excuse of religious prejudices, both really are against the class of people as per their own religious rationalizations.

          • Randomutation

            Your claim that Piggie Park “allowed blacks in their sit down restaurants” proves that you have not even read the court transcripts. You are just mindlessly copying and pasting things you find on activist websites without checking and without thinking for yourself.

          • Blake Paine

            It doesn’t help your client because the ruling supports the customer’s regardless:

            ”Undoubtedly defendant Besieger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.”

            Every customer has a right to their own beliefs about marriage just as protected as any that the business owner has. The difference is the business invited the public to come and buy their services knowing ahead of time that each member has a right to NOT share their religious beliefs and still buy the advertised services.

          • Randomutation

            His “utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizen” consisted of refusing blacks in his restaurant or drive-in parking lot based solely on their race. Phillips and Stutzman never refused to service anyone based solely on their sexual orientation. So once again your desperate appeal to Piggie Park is just another dismal failure.

          • Blake Paine

            Both admit it was religious discrimination, a violation of civil rights. The invited customers have a right to use the advertised product consistent with their own creed regardless of the business owners. And they also were discriminating by séx and sexual orientation.

            The civil rights qualities can’t even be in the decision tree.

          • Randomutation

            “Both admit it was religious discrimination”

            Neither Stutzman nor Phillips admitted to discrimination against anyone, period. Lying about this alleged admission of discrimination just shows how desperate you are.

          • Blake Paine

            Neither Stutzman nor Phillips admitted to discrimination against anyone, period

            Hmmmm they both evoked their creed in rejecting the customers who have a right to a creed to buy any publicly advertised service without discrimination by creed.

            That they used their creed to decide if they would serve a customer or not is by definition discrimination and is illegal in Colorado and Washington. After inviting the public far too late to tell the responding customers that they only serve people who hold certain beliefs and practices about marriage.

          • Randomutation

            “That they used their creed to decide if they would serve a customer”

            No they did not. The only thing they “used their creed “ for was to determine which ideas and opinions they would create expressions for. If they approved the idea, they would do it for any customer. If they disapproved the idea they would not do it for anyone. Your claim that they admitted discrimination is a lie.

          • Blake Paine

            No you just don’t understand the issue as has become clear. They are refusing a customer because of creed – theirs or the customers’ it makes no difference. There can be on discrimination ‘direct or indirect’ which saying that they are discriminating because of the ‘idea’ the customer’s creed lets them do. As asinine as the trope “love the sinner but hate the sin’. Sorry the ‘sinner’ has a right to ‘sin’ in the eyes of the business owner.

          • Randomutation

            “they are discriminating because of the ‘idea’”

            They are “discriminating” AGAINST the idea. That’s all. Ideas aren’t people. Your attempt to bridge the chasm between ideas and people was a dismal flop.

          • Blake Paine

            The only thing they “used their creed “ for was…
            And they aren’t allowed to discriminate by creed, period. Every customer has a right to their own creed and resultant ‘ideas and opinions’ and still buy the advertised service.

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • Randomutation

            Choosing which ideas and opinions they will create expressions for is not discrimination, period. Because ideas and opinions are not people. You tried to bridge the chasm between ideas and people by invoking Scalia’s yarmulke example. But you were caught red-handed surgically removing his quote from its surrounding context. When put back in context, it actually said the opposite of what you tried to pass it off as.

        • Blake Paine

          These are state civil rights statutes, not federal.

  • FoJC

    Civil Rights is just the ‘cover story’ in these cases. The real goal is to pull people into sinful behavior and legally punishing them for refusing to do so. This has been the agenda for decades now. Unfortunately, since most people don’t know the LORD, they’ve just stepped aside and allowed it to overtake most of society and business and government.

    What all the legal beagles want to do is fool Christians into believing there is justice in the American Justice System. Christians need to stop trusting in the court system that has affirmed the murder of babies in the womb and look to God for the strength to do His Will. This continued legal battling is only making lawyers richer, not American law more fair to its citizens.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

  • Such a case before any court would have been unheard of in 17th-century Colonial America whose governments of, by, and for God were established upon Yahweh’s immutable/unchanging moral law, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

    Consequently, there must be a definitive moment in America’s history when America’s Christian character and biblical course were formally altered. That point was in 1787 when the constitutional framers replaced the 17th-century Colonial governments for their own humanistic government of, by, and for the people based upon capricious man-made Enlightenment and Masonic traditions.

    Had the 18th-century founders done as the 17th-century Christian founders did, there would be no homosexual agenda in America period because no sodomite or lesbian would dare risk exposing themselves to petition government for their “rights.”

    For more on how Yahweh’s immutable moral law applies and should be implemented today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and scroll down to 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 right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

    • MamaBearly

      What about Jesus’ command to love everyone? He didn’t say that we should love everyone EXCEPT sinners. Because we are all sinners.
      If you followed Jesus, you would not be against the people, you would be against the sin. There is a difference.
      How can someone who is filled with hate consider themselves a Christian?

      There was not an ounce of hate in Jesus for people. Only for the sins. And he didn’t go around putting people down for their sins, he taught them not to sin and about repentance and Salvation. He even gave us a final commandment to love everyone. How can you say you are a follower of Jesus if you hate a person. You can’t because Jesus had no hate of persons.

      Do you not realize that God wants us all to love each other so we won’t sin against each other. If everyone loved each other the evil in this world would not exist. That is why Jesus offered us the Hope of Salvation. He wants us to behave like he did and follow his teachings so we don’t sin. Those are the ONLY people that will have salvation, because if you don’t follow Jesus, you will sin. One way or another. For instance hating. Anyone.

      Homosexuals are people – human beings – just like you! Do you like it when you hear of people who hate people just because they are religious? forget that: you probably don’t care. But you know what? Not caring is wrong according to the gospel as well. You sin in every post you make against homosexuals.

      We are not supposed to think, or act, like we are better than anyone else. We are supposed to be humble, not egoists.

      Our duty is to teach others about Jesus’ love, and to help them overcome their sins and repent. We are not to punish anyone – that is God’s responsibility alone.

      Oh and that book you mentioned, why do you need that kind of opinion when the bible is the only Truth and anything that is in it is the ONLY thing you should be concerned about. Opinions about things in the bible are just that, opinions. If that opinion has anything about hating people in it, it is against The Truth.

      How can you say you are a Christian when you don’t use the bible to live your life? Heck from what I have been reading, you haven’t even read the whole bible. Just a couple of things and then take half of those out of context. The Gospel is very clear about what Salvation is about. And if you can’t have love for everyone and treat people the way you want to be treated, then you are not following Jesus.

      • Mamabearly, please point out what YOU interpreted as hateful.

        If citing Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 set you off on your judgmental tirade, you’re problem is with God, not me.

        I’m sure you would then also have a problem with Christ in Matthew 15:1-9 for promoting the death penalty for children who curse their parents per Exodus 21:17.

        And you never read anything but the Bible!?! Come on, we both know better than that.

        • MamaBearly

          I beg your pardon, I apologize if I was judgemental. And yes it’s true, I read no other book but the bible. What is your point about whether I’ve ever read another book besides the bible.

          I must admit I assumed it was about the hate of gays. The reason for the assumption is that a) you are on a Christian board so likely a Christian b) The topic is about gays, and you referred to a book that was likely in reference to gays. A totally reasonable expectation. And true too I’m guessing.

          I was going to say something sarcastic, but I’ll refrain from it because I think you really believe that we are still supposed to follow the old laws? Scripture told us
          Matthew 22:38-40 [focus vs. 40]
          38 This is the first and great commandment.
          39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
          40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

          You see, Jesus told us that the two commandments cover all of the old ones. The majority of the laws were about sin and Jesus covered those when he was crucified for our sins. Blood had been given, so there is no longer any need of sacrificing animals for the forgiveness of sinning. Instead of animals, Jesus was our sacrifice.

          The Jews are still required to follow the laws that are about anything but sacrificing for sins, but (basically) because the Jews had already all those laws, when the Lord added the Gentiles to the Salvation plan, he said they did not have to follow the Hebrew laws. The chapter of Romans 6 explains it.

          I’m a Christian, but I support Gay equality. Guess that sounds strange, but I will explain.

          Gays are people first and sinners second. We are not supposed to treat anyone badly.

          Luke 6 states it clearly but there is other scripture saying the same thing.

          35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
          36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
          37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

          1) Because gays are people, and Jesus told us to love each other.

          2) Because gays sin, just like we do! and we are not told to hate the sinner, but just the sin.

          What we are supposed to do as followers of Jesus, is to tell them about Jesus’ love, and about his Hope of Salvation, and repentance. As you probably know, when a person chooses to follow Jesus, they desire to stop sinning. That is the way Jesus told us to behave. With love, kindness, caring, and mercy towards everyone.

          Jesus did not make any exceptions when he said everyone. He meant every person in the whole world. Because that is who HE loves. As a matter of fact, Jesus made it clear that no one should be considered as a waste of time because any of the people could have a change of heart, and repent. Jesus never said for us to hate anyone, and you make it pretty obvious that you pointed out that book because it said how to use something other than the bible in today’s world, and then there was the fact that the article is about gays.

          Read through the New Testament again and find out how Jesus wants us to behave, and what our duty to the Lord is. One of the things Jesus said was
          Matthew 5:16
          16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
          works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

          God bless!!

          • Apology accepted.

            No, the book I referenced (which I wrote) is not about homosexuals.

            As for the God’s law under the New Testament, you are in error, as proven in the following New Testament passages:

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

            “…truth [is] in the law.” (Romans 2:20)

            “…by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

            “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

            “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12)

            “For we know that the law is spiritual….” (Romans 7:14)

            “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)

            “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

            “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” (1 Timothy 1:8)

            “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)

            “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4)

            “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:2)

            “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3)

            “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:17)

            “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12)

            While our justification, forgiveness, and salvation are exclusively by means of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, He did not do away with His Father’s morality as reflected in His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, including as it pertains to salvation.

            For more on how Yahweh’s immutable moral law applies and should be
            implemented today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and scroll down to title.

          • MamaBearly

            Personally, I don’t purposely talk about specific morals because most people already know them because of the 10 commandments being taught over the centuries.

            The focus for me is Jesus, Love, Salvation, and repentance. If they understand those things they won’t be immoral will they?

            It’s their choice and we can’t do anything to them for not choosing to follow Jesus, except to leave them to punishment on Judgement Day.

            Was there a specific law you were focusing on? I believe the last 6 of the 10 commandment were about morals. The first four being about God Himself.

            Wouldn’t Jesus mention something that has to be “implemented” in the bible? I would expect if he wanted something done it would have been made obvious so we wouldn’t misunderstand what the bible is teaching us. Besides the Word of God is what we are to follow, not books of someone’s opinion. (no offense intended).

            All of the 10 commandments were covered by Jesus’ second command to love everyone. Specifically Jesus said:
            Matthew 22: 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

            And that means that all the laws and the prophecies were no longer necessary if you follow Jesus, loving God and your neighbour (- who is anyone not just someone who lives beside you). The end of the prophecies were completed by Jesus that is why they no longer mattered. It was coming to his Crucifixion at that point.

            I’m sorry, I go strictly by the bible about anything I believe. It’s the only authority as far as I’m concerned.

            Good luck with your book!

            God bless!

          • You’ve convinced you go by the Bible, and you’re not even close.

            You’re also a hypocrite if you don’t give the same considerations you do to practicing sodomites and lesbians to practicing murderers, kidnappers, and rapists being they are all capital criminals, according to the Only One who has the authority to determine what’s a capital crime and what’s not.

            You’ve simple created a god after you’re own image and found passages in the Bible that you you prefer and then simply ignore those that don’t fit the god you’ve created, which, in fact, is yourself. Your simple a humanist in Christian attire.

          • MamaBearly

            You’re also a hypocrite if you don’t give
            the same considerations you do to practicing sodomites and lesbians to
            practicing murderers, kidnappers, and rapists being they are all capital
            criminals, according to the Only One who has the authority to determine what’s
            a capital crime and what’s not.

            I think I’m too honest to be a hypocrite. Especially when I am able to point anyone to the Gospel and prove what I say is what Jesus told us. I just follow Jesus, in what we are supposed to do; how to behave to guide others to Jesus. That is what any believer is supposed to do.

            So you seriously believe that anyone who has been gay: “sodomite and lesbian” will Never Ever find Jesus and change their lifestyle for him? There have actually been many cases where they have repented that life and received the hope of salvation.

            I guess you forget the command to forgive as the Father forgives us.
            You also forget that love is the greatest Commandment(s) that Jesus gave us to do, and spreading the gospel was our duty.

            If you will reread my post I am only behaving in the way that Jesus wanted us to behave. He did not want hatred in the world because it caused people to sin. He told us that to love is to “cover” a multitude of sins.

            I first said that they must understand the gospel, about Jesus’ love, his offer of Salvation from repentance for believers and about Jesus’ forgiveness.

            Then I said that once they know about those things, they have to – of their own free will – make the choice of whether to follow Jesus or not; with the knowledge given to them (including Hell & Damnation for un-repented sin) they will decide what they want to do.

            If they continue the sin then it is their decision to take a chance that Hell and Damnation isn’t real.

            Punishment for sins is for Jesus and His Judges on Judgement Day, not for us. Jesus shows us about that by example when he dealt with the adulteress because he told her to sin no more rather than allowing the crowd to stone her to death. By pointing out that all are sinners He was saying that they had no right to punish her. By telling her to sin no more, he was not punishing her.

            You cannot force a person to repent of a sin. Jesus said if they don’t want to follow him, to walk away because they will have their punishment – just not then.

            When the disciples walked away when Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he let them walk away. He did not tell anyone to, or punish them himself. He said it would be dealt with and to let them leave.

            Jesus did point out that sinners will repent when the end is close. Jesus wants everyone to come to Salvation and made no exceptions about others sins, for us to “handle”.

            Do you punish adulterers too? They are supposed to be stoned by your belief that we are to punish for sins.

            What if you don’t know their sin? How do you know what to punish them for?

            I do agree with punishing the other crimes not just because God was very clear about them, but because they are evil, and harm other people,

            The sins of Sodomy and being a Lesbian are sins that can be repented and behaviour is changed. No one but God knows whether they will repent. Sure we can have an opinion, but we cannot know like Jesus does.

            Besides, where exactly did Jesus say in the NT that human beings were supposed to punish anyone for their sins, beyond those that are also against the laws of the land. I’d really honestly like to see the scriptures because I have never noticed them in the Gospel.

            Jesus wants us to love. He would never ask us to hate enough to punish a person. That’s why there will be a Judgement Day, for punishment to the non-believers for things written in their life books.

            I honestly do not understand how you can think that you are superior to any other person. Jesus told us to be humble. By deciding these people will be punished in any way is telling God that you know better than he does. Because He is the ONLY authority on guilt of sin, and it’s punishment.
            And feeling superior to anyone is a sin, as is thinking you know who needs to be punished here on earth as well as on Judgement Day, when he is the only one that can judge us.

            Sin or not, gays are people who need to be brought to Jesus, so they will believe and decide to repent and change.
            We are supposed to be about teaching all sinners about the gospel, not just the ones that “only sin a little” because of the fact that we are ALL sinners.

            If you attack someone in any way, it cannot be done with Love. Love is not able to allow the darkness in, and hurting anyone or not loving anyone is a sin.

            Demeaning with words is also a kind of attack and is a sin as well. Remember when people used to say “if you can’t say something nice, do not say anything at all.” It’s a good rule that too many people ignore, and end up in conflict because of it.

            I honestly think you need to re-read the NT to understand what Jesus wanted. It’s up to you to know the Gospel and follow Jesus, and I think everyone should be up to the task of helping others so they find out about Jesus’ love, believe in Him and his Hope of Salvation, repent and just like us, decide to try not to sin anymore. Just as we fail, they will sin but not necessarily by returning to that lifestyle. Everyone is a sinner, and if they say they do not sin, they are liars, according to Jesus.

            Honestly I really want you to read the gospel because what you have said here, sounds like you don’t understand it. I’m not trying to be superior, or judgemental, I am trying to help one of my brothers see the Truth.

            God bless you!

          • Thank you for proving my point.

            I suspect you have relatives or friends who have become sodomites or lesbians and you have therefore found a way to manipulate the Bible so as to not have to condemn them in their criminal acts while retaining your claim to being a Christian.

            Whether relatives, friends, or otherwise, if you wouldn’t extend the same exact courtesies to practicing murders, rapists, and kidnappers as you do to practicing homosexuals, I’m sorry, you’re a hypocrite.

            Of course, all sinners (capital or otherwise) need to hear the gospel.

          • MamaBearly

            No, FYI, you suspect wrong, it is the way my Church believes. The Gospel is about love. Including sinners, no matter the sin. We are supposed to help people over come their sins when they choose to repent but if you don’t tell them (without yelling) how can they come to repentance?

            What is the reason you feel that homosexuals should be punished by us not God?

            Do you have scriptures that will show me I am wrong? That Jesus wants US to punish sinners on earth as well as His own punishment if that is how He judges each person. on Judgement Day?
            I truly would like to see those scriptures so I can consider my beliefs with those in mind.

            I would appreciate it if you could be more polite with me.

            You have absolutely no reason to behave like that towards me. I have recommended you read the Gospel again because I feel you are very wrong about what it says if you think you have any authority to punish ANYONE for sins. Only Jesus does.

            Do you read my whole post, or just part of it? Look I’m serious, you should reread the gospel before you do anything to anyone. It’s when you know the gospel that understanding will come.

            God please give this man wisdom and knowledge to understand the gospel so he will come out of the darkness of hating, and learn that you, Lord Jesus, want us to love and help others and more. In Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.

            I will address something else in a second post. If you don’t like long posts, I’ll just post more smaller ones so they won’t be too long. If you don’t read this whole post, you won’t realize why I am posting 2 instead of one.
            God’s blessings!

          • I’m sorry, I find you’re accusation that I’m impolite with you to be rather ironic. This dialogue began with you accusing me of being hateful, which by the way is a usurpation of Yahweh’s place as my God and Judge. Only God knows the hearts, thus to judge one’s motives is to make yourself out as God. You’ve essentially done the same with your accusation of impoliteness and other presumptions you’ve made in your emails.

            I’ve not been impolite with you. I’ve simply declared to what appears to be hypocrisy on your part and suspect on the part of your church as well. You seem to think that to point out one’s sins (whether as it pertains to sodomites or yourself) is hateful and yelling. I can only imagine what you must of think of Christ in Matthew 23, etc.

            As a pastor, I’ve given this more time than I can afford. I must move on. I do hope that you’ll have eyes to see your hypocrisy when it comes to way you’ve handled yourself in this dialogue and in your approach to practicing sodomites.

            If your truly interested in an answer to your question regarding Yahweh’s civil sanctions under the New Covenant, I suggest that you begin with “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” that you’ll find on our Online Book page.

            Then my blog series “Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government” on our Blog page.

            And please don’t come back with you only read the Bible. You’ve been reading what I’ve been posting and listening to a pastor expound upon the Word of God is no different than reading it in print. In fact, nearly everything I’ve written was first preached from the pulpit first.

            Got to go, but thanks for the dialogue, nonetheless.

          • MamaBearly

            As an Evangelist, I know you will want to read this to the bottom because of a couple of points I make.

            I just googled your name and with the results I got, none of them pointed to your blog.
            TBH Most of them were rather dismissive. Maybe you should check them out? *shrug*

            The issue in today’s society against gays is not connected in any way to their sin. It is only about their having equal rights, but you see, unlike us, they had to reveal their sin which was why people were so hateful, just so they could have equal rights.

            I do thank you for one thing: and that is bringing me to read Romans 13 vs. 9.

            Romans 13, as I just looked through it and I didn’t see anything about homosexuality. It’s not in any of the sins Jesus listed and Ring Ring – It DID say something about gays! Jesus took the homosexuality sin OFF the list of sins he gave, and put it “and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

            This proves that Jesus believed homosexuality was a sin that is to be repented just as all other sins, and with love too! Thank you SO MUCH for pointing me to that scripture. I’ve been looking for it but couldn’t remember the wording.
            God bless you! I knew Jesus would never tell us to punish people because they have sinned. I knew he looked at sins as something the people can choose to repent for and be forgiven for. And he will forgive anything that is repented.

            Thanks you so much for giving me more to prove Jesus would not agree with how people deal with sinners. All he said to do was tell the people so they could choose to repent for their sins. He never said to punish any sin ourselves. He said they were going to be judged and at the time they will have damnation after death if they don’t repent. That makes them no different that the other sinners that join churches if they don’t repent.

            Anyways, Good luck with your Ministry, God bless you for teaching one of the interpretations of the Bible. I enjoyed the discussion at the end mostly, but I only want to understand what is believed so I can truly understand God’s Word.

          • MamaBearly

            Reply part 2…
            Do you know about the Fruit of the Spirit? Galatians 5?
            Most of the sins listed in verses 19 to 21 are known to all man, not just homosexuals. They are sins that people often have to repent for to be saved. Even convicted murders, rapists and kidnappers have been known to repent and ask for forgiveness, which is up to God when he judges the men.
            The Fruit of the Spirit has no mention of hate, or punishment.
            So I really need to know what the scriptures are that will tell me that I missed something because it sounds like it might be important to all Christians.

            I’m very serious about needing to know the scriptures. I need to learn them and talk to my Bishop / Pastor about it. I thirst to understand everything I can about the Bible.

            I frequently ask others for help understanding their beliefs. Besides that if I am teaching others the wrong way about something, I need to be shown what it is supposed to be according to God’s Word because if it is not in the Bible, It is not Truth.
            And I do not want to misinform people about what we as Christians are supposed to believe either. I’m trying to post for the people to learn the Word of God, so since your belief and my Church belief being so different, it’s up to you as my brethren to correct me and teach me the right ways. If we see another believer that is falling – or back sliding – we are supposed to let each other know about that too.
            Galations 5:18 – 26 Focus verses 22 & 23
            18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
            19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
            20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
            seditions, heresies,
            21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
            22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
            23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
            24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
            25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
            26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

        • MamaBearly

          By the way, Jesus was not telling us about those points of Matthew 15:1-9 for us to believe or do.
          He was confronting the Scribes and Pharisees about them teaching things that were against God’s commandments. They were being hypocrites and Jesus had no problem telling them so, but this scripture in particular was about the way they were teaching things the wrong way to the people (who would not know that the instructions were corrupted by the scribes and the pharisees.)
          In a big way, the pharisees of those days are like those big church Pastors that use all the money their church has on himself and for making himself famous so they can make more money. Hypocrites.
          And yes I know they were God’s commands that they were discussing, but Jesus knew what was going to happen and why and was able to speak to the Pharisees because he was teaching us about hypocrites and sin. Every time he spoke to the Pharisees he was teaching us about what they were doing wrong.
          As for the Leviticus ones you know that God hated the sin, and because they did not repent and begin to follow God He condemned the sin of committing those actions, but Jesus still believed that some sinners could come to Salvation, and who would know better than Himself?
          Did Jesus ever condone Violence and Hate? Other than hate of sin, I don’t believe Jesus ever condoned violence like what was asked for by God in the OT.
          The Gospel and Jesus’ teachings and examples, is what we are supposed to live like. The OT was used as a source for many scriptures, mostly prophecies, but when Jesus came here, every thing was dismissed except what Jesus told us and showed us as an example. Even in the OT we were told that God IS Love, and then we were told Jesus IS Love and that he loved us and was giving us a way to live that would be a good life without stress and filled with the Joy and Peace he’s always wanted to give to his people.
          It told us often in the bible that God loved the sinners as much as he loved his children. God bless!
          He was never violent except when he was fulfilling a prophecy. It was pointed out every time so we would understand that violence is not an option without it being against Jesus’ commandments.

    • Bob Johnson

      With good old colonial law we would still have Ephesians and 1 Peter. That will stop those slave uprisings and giving women a voice in politics. And yes this would never have been a case before a court, indeed a woman owned business

  • peanut butter

    The Bill of rights mentions freedom of religion, but as many times as I’ve read it, I never saw anything in there about sexual orientation. You can’t just make up the rules as you go along, you are supposed to be going by the Constitution. When you make up conflicting rules, the first rule should overrule the last. But our Forefathers never in a million years ever thought that this country would come to this. If they knew it was going to happen, they would have banned ‘gay marriage’ from the start. And all other lgbt shenanigans.

    • Blake Paine

      The 9th and 10th amendment allows states to recognized rights not in the federal constitution, which are just as much rights as any listed there.

      And since there are many religions that allow marriage regardless of the couple’s sexes even this is just as much about the freedom of ‘creed’ of the customers as anything else.

      • MamaBearly

        Hi Blake!
        I think I agree with you but I’m not sure of the last part about ‘creed’. Could you please explain that part for me? I’d appreciate it. 😀 God bless!

        this is just as much about the freedom of
        ‘creed’ of the customers as anything else.

        • Blake Paine

          Creed is what both Colorado and Washington use instead of ‘religion’ in their civil rights codes since back in the early 20th century there were people trying to make a case that ‘religion’ only referred to beliefs that include a god of some kind. ‘Creed’ includes humanism, atheism, buddhism, Wiccan and all the rest. So all religions are a creed, but creed also includes philosophies and non-theistic beliefs.

          • MamaBearly

            Thanks for explaining that to me. I admit I really did not enjoy history and it’s been 4 decades since I learned that.
            I do appreciate you helping me like this. Oh, and I do agree with you.
            Blessings!

      • peanut butter

        You said it… States’ rights. Those rights were denied when obama got his liberal SCOTUS to remove those States’ rights and cram ‘homo marriage’ into the whole United States and gave the states NO say in it. The Constitution was thrown to the side in a heap when that was allowed to happen. You can’t have it both ways, but you wouldn’t know about that, being a lawyer and all. You think everything is up for grabs.

        • Blake Paine

          As with many you have no understanding of what the court was asked or decided.

          Marriage is a federally recognized, state licensed civil contract. All the court was asked was if ‘by virtue of the 14th amedment does this federal recognition of these contracts make them valid everywhere there is federal jurisdiction through all levels of government?’

          The answer was ‘yes’ same answer they would reach if it was a federally recognized fishing license.

          And because citizens can have them in every state and marriage is a fundamental right then they should be available in every state.

          That’s all they did.

    • Michael C

      You can’t just make up the rules as you go along, you are supposed to be going by the Constitution.

      Non-discrimination laws are not derived from the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

      We can actually make the rules up as we go. Perhaps you’ve heard of the legislative branch of the government. For example, states create their own non-discrimination laws.

      If these laws that prohibit discrimination violate the Constitution, the judicial branch of our government has the power to nullify them

  • The Dove

    The minority in most need of protection is the individual.

    • Blake Paine

      Agreed. The customer is the one treated badly here. Arlene’s Flowers had other employees that could have made the arrangements if Stutzman didn’t want to do it herself.

  • The woman is licenced through a government which every citizen pays taxes to support. All American citizens have an equal right to commerce. Religion should have absolutely no say in who is served by a licensed establishment and who is not.

    Suppose I ran the only bakery in a town (the only bakery within at least 50 miles). I served everyone who came in my store and I catered to business meetings and parties, but I refused to cater to Christian weddings or any other Christian specific events. That would be fine with Christians?

    • Randomutation

      I assume that you would service Christians for birthday parties, graduation parties, etc as long as they were not requesting your creative talents for “Christian specific events”.
      If you felt that servicing “Christian specific events” violated your beliefs, I would not want you to violate your beliefs on my behalf. I would rather go somewhere else, even if you were the “only bakery within at least 50 miles”, rather than try to compel you to violate your beliefs.

      • In my proposed scenario, I would not service Christians at graduation parties in decidedly sectarian surroundings. As for parties in general, I would because I don’t know who is Christian and who is not. Same with people walking into my store.

        Those who deny catering to same gender weddings but cater to any others need to look at their business licence. It says that they are/have a catering service. It does not say that they have a catering service except for people they consider sinful. Of course, were that the case and they were honest, they would not service any events.

        I know this sounds rather hateful, but it is an attempt to reflect the attitudes of Christian fundamentalists back to them. As well, I’m demonstrating the fact that every citizen has a right to legal commerce. To deny particular groups one of their basic rights is to proclaim that some citizens are better than others, placing one’s self as the arbiter of who gets full rights in a secular setting and who does not.

        And no person has a right to impose his religious beliefs on others in the open market–a place licensed and governed by a secular government to which those whom you deny also pay taxes to support.

        Live the way you want and impose no burden on others and let them do the same. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (in different words, this is in your Bible–note that it does not say, “except for homosexuals”).

        And serving a gay wedding places no burden on the caterer. Your religious beliefs in the secular marketplace are irrelevant. It is not a denial of your religious freedom.

        • Randomutation

          “In my proposed scenario, I would not service Christians at graduation parties in decidedly sectarian surroundings. As for parties in general, I would because I don’t know who is Christian and who is not. Same with people walking into my store. . . . I know this sounds rather hateful, but it is an attempt to reflect the attitudes of Christian fundamentalists back to them.”

          That’s fine, but in your “attempt to reflect the attitudes of Christian fundamentalists back to them.,” you need to be sure that you are doing it in a symmetric way, and not setting up strawman policies that are not valid analogues to the policies of Stutzman or Phillips. For example, your statement that you “would not service Christians at graduation parties in decidedly sectarian surroundings” is not symmetric with any of their policies. Their decision to serve (or not serve) is based solely on WHAT is being celebrated, not on WHERE it is being celebrated. And your statement that you would serve Christians for birthday partied because you “don’t know who is Christian and who is not” is also not a valid analogy to the policies of Stutzman or Phillips. Even if they know who is gay and who is not, their decision to serve (or not serve) is based strictly on WHAT is being celebrated, not on WHO is doing the celebrating.

          But I do I have a suggestion for a fair analogue if you want to accurately reflect the policies of Stutzman and Phillips: Say, that you have always served known Christians for birthday parties, graduation celebrations, super bowl parties, etc. But one day some Christians come to you with the news that they want to have a celebration for someone who has undergone gay conversion therapy. They want you to create a birthday cake for this celebration because a birthday cake would symbolize their opinion of a new birth for this person who now claims to be straight. You refuse, not because the requesters are Christian, but because you object to WHAT they are celebrating, and you want no part in creating anything that would express the opinion that gay conversion therapy is something to be celebrated.
          That scenario is an accurate analogue to the situation that Stutzman and Phillips faced.

          • your statement that you “would not service Christians at graduation parties in decidedly sectarian surroundings” is not symmetric with any of their policies.

            Are you suggesting that a fundamentalist baker would be willing to cater an overtly gay party? I say that you are quite wrong. That was YOUR straw man.

            It seems that you are struggling to justify Christians denying some rights to all citizens. I don’t know how I could make it more clear. In a secular setting under secular laws, in a business of commerce licenced by a secular government to whom all citizens support with their taxes, Christians may not discriminate on whom they will or will not serve.

            In contrast, I would not discriminate against anyone. I try to live the Golden Rule. In the extremely unlikely event that there is a god of the even more extremely unlikely nature of the Christian god, let It deal with how people lived. It is not up to you.

            Radical Muslims, like some radical Christians, feel that it is their duty to kill those who they believe their god hates. At least you are not advocating that, but just repressing them by denying them their rights. Same attitude, but on a different level.

            You may not like it, but our bill of rights, and the rest of the Constitution, is a major attempt to bring about social justice (Although that dream is now rapidly vanishing to the cheers of the conservative, self-righteous, religious right).

            You cannot have social justice if some segments of society are not allowed to participate in commerce that everyone else may.

            It is a shame that many Christians and conservatives in general hate the very idea of equality (except for themselves, of course–in concert with Huxley’s Animal Farm). You should read that book. It is a true metaphor even today–especially today.

          • Randomutation

            “Are you suggesting that a fundamentalist baker would be willing to cater an overtly gay party? “

            I don’t have to “suggest” anything. I rely on the facts of the case. And the fact is that Stutzman’s service policy and Phillip’s service policy was to deny service based ONLY on WHAT was being celebrated, NOT WHERE the celebration was taken place, and NOT WHO was doing the celebrating. There is no indication that this policy was ever violated. In fact, in the court transcripts it was absolutely undisputed that they freely served all gays except when the issue was WHAT was being celebrated. Therefore, your attempt to “reflect the attitudes of Christian fundamentalists back to them” by saying you would not service “graduation parties in decidedly sectarian surroundings” is not even close to a reflection of Phillips or Stutzman. If you want an honest reflection of Phillips and Stutzman, then I gave you the perfect one.
            Here it is again: Say, that you have always served known Christians for birthday parties, graduation celebrations, super bowl parties, etc. But one day some Christians come to you with the news that they want to have a celebration for someone who has undergone gay conversion therapy. They want you to create a birthday cake for this celebration because a birthday cake would symbolize their opinion of a new birth for this person who now claims to be straight. You refuse, not because the requesters are Christian, but because you object to WHAT they are celebrating, and you want no part in creating anything that would express the opinion that gay conversion therapy is something to be celebrated.

            That analogy mirrors the totality of Stutzman’s and Phillip’s business interactions with gays. Anything else is just embellishment

          • Okay, then they would not cater to a party that is held to celebrate a gay after reception party, or a “celebration of love and life” for a deceased gay person that would actually celebrate his gay married life?

            you want no part in creating anything that would express the opinion that gay conversion therapy is something to be celebrated.

            Completely irrelevant to our debate. This activity is dangerous where a gay wedding is a marriage of two people who love each other.

            You cannot change a person’s genetic predisposition once manifested (and yes, sexuaity and predispositons, to varying degrees, are already set before a person is born). You can certainly mask them by psychological “re-education” (mind control/thought reform/brainwashing–as in “The Manchurian Candidate”), but this can easily lead to suicide, especially in adolescence. It is not a mental disease, so it is not something you can “cure,” but you can definitely screw up a person’s mind.

            According to the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF PSYCHIATRIC-MENTAL HEALTH NURSES (ISPN):

            Harmful sequelae of reparative therapy [gay conversion therapy] reported in the literature include anxiety, depression, avoidance of intimacy, sexual dysfunction, PTSD, loss of self-confidence and self-efficacy, shame/guilt, self-destructive behavior, and suicidality (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Ford, 2001; Haldeman, 2001, Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002; Tozer & Hayes, 2004; Yarhouse, 2002).

            And, no. I don’t expect you to care a whit about professional opinions or studies or statistics. Your religious belief superseeds all that, right?

          • Randomutation

            “Completely irrelevant to our debate. This activity is dangerous where a gay wedding is a marriage of two people who love each other.”

            The relative merits/harms of same sex marriage vs gay conversion therapy are totally irrelevant. The baker has nothing to do with the marriage or the therapy. The baker is asked to service the CELEBRATION of the marriage or the CELEBRATION of the therapy. And in either case he declines because of WHAT is being celebrated, not because of WHO is doing the celebrating.

          • Let’s get back to facts, shall we? You said:

            But one day some Christians come to you with the news that they want to have a celebration for someone who has undergone gay conversion therapy. They want you to create a birthday cake for this celebration because a birthday cake would symbolize their opinion of a new birth for this person who now claims to be straight. You refuse, not because the requesters are Christian, but because you object to WHAT they are celebrating, and you want no part in creating anything that would express the opinion that gay conversion therapy is something to be celebrated.
            That scenario is an accurate analogue to the situation that Stutzman and Phillips faced.

            Fact 1. Gay “conversion” therapy is a process that DAMAGES a lot of people, particularly young people/teens. It has led to suicides, depression, and other mental problems.

            Fact 2. A gay wedding is the marriage of two people who LOVE each other.

            Fact 3. Dropping my scenario: even though I am an atheist, I would certainly cater Christian weddings in any setting, even fundamentalist weddings. This is the big difference between fundamentalists and myself. Where there is love, I would serve. I don’t care what they belive. But you would not. I consider that to be unethical and harmful.

            In “conversion therapy,” you celebrate a apparent, successful mental-reeducation, I do not. I try to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. You do not. It’s as simple as that.

            Catering a wedding is a matter of celebrating LOVE, not celebrating who love whom. Too, it is a celebration of our founders very wise statement that:

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

            I’m sorry that you and virtually all other fundamentalists do not accept that statement.

          • Randomutation

            “Fact 1. Gay “conversion” therapy is a process that DAMAGES a lot of people, particularly young people/teens. It has led to suicides, depression, and other mental problems.”

            Whether it does more harm than good is a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. And if you were a baker asked by Christians to make a cake for celebrating the opinion that conversion therapy is a good thing, you would be within you rights to decline. And it would be absurd for anyone to claim that your refusal to help in the expression of their opinion constitutes discrimination against the Christians who do want to express it.
            Same for Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. He has the right to decline being instrumental in celebrating the opinion that same sex marriage is a good thing. And it’s just as absurd to claim that this refusal of an opinion constitutes discrimination against people as it would be to claim discrimination if a baker refused the opinion that conversion therapy is a good thing.

            “I try to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. You do not. It’s as simple as that.”

            I would not want others to create anything for me if doing so would violate their beliefs. I would go elsewhere. So, on what do you base your unsubstantiated claim that I do not “try to do unto others as I would have them do unto me?”
            On the other hand, would you want to be compelled by law to create something that expresses an opinion that violates your beliefs? If not, then why do you advocate that Phillips and others should be compelled by law to create something that expresses an opinion that violates their beliefs? How does that fit in with your claim of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

            “I’m sorry that you and virtually all other fundamentalists do not accept that statement.”

            I don’t know where you get the idea I’m a fundamentalist. All I have advocated for is the right of a baker – Christian or not – to refuse to be instrumental in the expression of an opinion they disagree with. Your presumption that I must be a fundamentalist is thus a revelation of your own bigotry and prejudice.

          • Whether it does more harm than good is a matter of opinion.

            No, it’s a matter of fact. You have an opinion, I have facts. I live in a fact based world, you do not. Mind control, properly done, can always satisfy the controler for at least the near future and even make him believe that what he has done to someone’s mind is a good thing. You can simply write off anyone who subsequently commits suicide or otherwise becomes unstable. They don’t matter to you. I say this because of your lack of interest in the results scientific studies of conversion therapy that go against what you want to believe.

            Since you deny real science and statistics in favor of unfounded belief, there is no way that you will recognize the difference between science and belief when science tends to step on your theological toes.

            What good YOU believe “therapy” does is purely subjective. You are not a psychologist, you reject any evidence of psychological damage from such actions, and no amount of facts will convince you otherwise.

            Our world view will never change. You continue to believe in mind control and I do not. I am convinced that objective science is the best method of understanding the real world, you believe that subjective belief is.

            I believe that a human being is the captain of his own mind and body, you do not. I believe in giving everyone the right to seek happiness (and I will support it) according to the dictates of their conscience and I place no burden on them for doing so. You do not subscribe to this. You tend to think that you have the right to pressure those whom you believe are sinning into denying their nature.

            I would not want others to create anything for me if doing so would violate their beliefs. I would go elsewhere.

            That you are okay with a business discriminating against you and your activities in the secular marketplace is very easy to say, but in reality, it would be an imposition on you and a violation of social ethics. What you are fine with does not make it right.

            I don’t know where you get the idea I’m a fundamentalist.

            Duh! Your attitude is squarely in the fundamentalist camp. You are defending discrimination based on biblical beliefs. Why are you hedging against admitting what you are obviously promoting–discriminating on the basis of your religious belief. It is a common practice with fundamentalists.

            If you were not a fundamentalist, you would not be so quick to defend biblical strictures and impose yourself on others (therapy).

            And for the record, I use “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” interchangeably. They are virtually the same.

            If you were not a fundamentalist, you would not be a science denier. You would not get your education (apparently) solely from AiG, but from real science sites and/or books. You would not deny that the scientific method is the best means of understanding natural phenomena. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

            And you are arguing for religious discrimination and call ME bigoted and prejudiced? Wow!!!. Who doesn’t love irony?

          • Randomutation

            “No, it’s a matter of fact. You have an opinion, I have facts.”

            I will not dispute your facts. Nor your conclusion. It suffices to note that your conclusion is still opinion, because you have subjectively chosen which facts to consider and which ones to ignore. Someone else may decide to factor in the 40X lower risk of HIV infection that an average gay male can expect by ceasing to engage in sex with other men. Also a lowered risk of syphilis and other STDs. Also a significantly longer life expectancy. The conclusion one draws depends on how much weight one assigns to the different positive and negative factors. Assigning zero weight to any positive factor (as you apparently have done) is about as subjective as you can get. Subjective does not mean wrong, but it does mean that your conclusion is opinion, not fact.

            In any event, turning down the celebration of gay conversion does not require that your opinion be fact. It only matters that you are turning down the Christians, not because they are Christians, but rather because they want you to create something that celebrates an opinion that is contrary to your opinion. I can find no precedent in any federal court where such a refusal was ruled to constitute discrimination.

            “That you are okay with a business discriminating against you and your activities in the secular marketplace is very easy to say, but in reality, it would be an imposition on you and a violation of social ethics.”

            Refusing my request to create something that expresses an opinion they disagree with does not constitute discrimination against me. In over 5 decades of civil rights litigation in federal courts, I can find no precedent for a ruling of discrimination based on a baker, florist, photographer, etc. refusing to utilize their talents to create something that expresses an opinion they disagree with. If you can find such a ruling then more power to you.

            “Your attitude is squarely in the fundamentalist camp. You are defending discrimination based on biblical beliefs.”

            Biblical or non-Biblical makes no difference. I defend anyone’s right to not be compelled to create something that expresses an idea or opinion they disagree with. I don’t care whether their belief is Biblical or non-Biblical , they have a right to express it, and a corresponding right to not be compelled to express contrary beliefs. Your claim that my “attitude is squarely in the fundamentalist camp” is thus as illogical as saying that the ACLU is squarely in the Nazi camp because they defend free speech rights for everyone, including the Nazis.

            “If you were not a fundamentalist, you would not be so quick to defend biblical strictures and impose yourself on others (therapy). . . . If you were not a fundamentalist, you would not be a science denier. You would not get your education (apparently) solely from AiG, but from real science sites and/or books. You would not deny that the scientific method is the best means of understanding natural phenomena.”

            So, your unsupported claim that I am a fundamentalist is now supported only by these other unsupported claims. That’s pretty terrible logic, especially coming from someone who fancies himself to be scientifically minded.

          • I have three questions that should cut through the rhetoric. They concern intersexuals, people born with with a variety of male and female traits which may even manifest both male and female genitalia (ambiguous genitalia).

            Upon birth of a baby with ambiguous genitalia, some parents decide for themselves which gender they want their baby to be and order the operation to make it so. Then they proceed to nurture the child to be their chosen gender.

            It turned out in some cases that the parents made the wrong choice and the baby’s actual genotype is the opposite of what they chose (and actually some children can be, genotypically, in between).

            Question 1. If you believe that your god made humans strictly male and female, then how is it that an intersexual is born?

            You can easily evade the next two, but I’d like you to be specific on (1).

            Question 2. Would your view be that it would be right and moral to refuse to cater to such a person’s wedding if the couple has the same genitalia (if known) and/or both dress as one gender or the other?

            Question 3. Do you think that there should be a law against people who are apparently the same gender marrying?

          • Randomutation

            “I have three questions that should cut through the rhetoric.”

            Looks to me like you are adding to the rhetoric rather than cutting through it. But I’ll address your three questions
            1) LOL!!! Still trying to find some way to peg me as a fundamentalist. Looks like your question is directed more towards a creationist. I don’t know if my screen name tips you off to the fact that I’m not, but if you hung around the Yahoo Message Boards years ago before they were sadly shut down you would know that I opposed creationists in many of the creation vs evolution debates. So I don’t really satisfy the IF part of your question. But from debating many creationists I do know that the standard fundamentalist answer to your question would be that they were male and female before the fall, and that all deviations came after the fall due to Satan’s work. Then you might counter that “God made Satan and Satan made the deviations and therefore . . .” Yeah, rabbit hole. No need to go there.
            2) “Right and moral” are attributes I have not claimed even for Stutzman and Phillips, so it looks sort of straw-mannish to be inserting them here. My position on this is that: a) refusing to create something expressive for the celebration of an idea or opinion you disagree with falls under freedom of speech. b) Such a refusal does not constitute discrimination as long as you would refuse anyone who makes the same request. c) There is no such thing as a right to compel another to create something expressive for the celebration of an idea or opinion they disagree with. So in answer to your question, yes those assertions hold equally well if the celebration is for a marriage like the one you describe.
            3) No. I’m fine with the Obergefell ruling. You should have the right to live your life as you see fit (including marriage), and you should respect the right of others (bakers, florists, photographers) to live their lives as they see fit. It’s not a lunch counter. It’s not lodging or housing. It’s not employment or medical care or education.

            Now that I have answered your questions, please answer the question I asked you a few posts back:
            Would you want to be compelled by law to create something that expresses an opinion that violates your beliefs (as in the gay conversion example)? If not, then why do you advocate that Phillips and others should be compelled by law to create something that expresses an opinion that violates their beliefs? How does that fit in with your claim of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

          • Okay, I think I have the whole picture of your view. You take the approach of a libertarian. But liberty is a very difficult matter. Liberty cannot be all inclusive under the Constitution. The law forbids discrimination in commerce and I fully agree with that. It appears that you do not.

            #1, Good answer. I appreciate your clarification.

            I am not a libertarian in the sense that everyone has the liberty to discriminate in commerce for no other reason than their religious belief.

            As for “wanting” to be forced to serve a celebration of a coercive, dangerous practice, I certainly would not like it, of course. But then, the question is moot based on the fact that no law would compel me to support a dangerous practice. A wedding, however, cannot be construed to be a dangerous act or non-voluntary no matter who is getting married.

            But, I understand you position now. We simply disagree on rights under the Constitution and what is moral and what is not.

          • Randomutation

            “The law forbids discrimination in commerce and I fully agree with that. It appears that you do not.”

            If it appears that way to you then it appears to me that you did not read what I said in part b of my answer to your question #2. You are free to challenge my argument there, of course. But you haven”t. And now you are simply ignoring the point while easing right back into this discrimination narrative.

            “As for “wanting” to be forced to serve a celebration of a coercive, dangerous practice, I certainly would not like it, of course.”

            Wait. Stop the music. I didn’t say this was coerced. Would you only refuse if it was coerced, and only if it was one of the harsher methods, such as aversion therapy? What if it was voluntary, and employed only very mild counseling and positive reinforcement?

            “But then, the question is moot based on the fact that no law would compel me to support a dangerous practice.”

            You’re not being asked to support the practice, only to support a celebration of the practice. And as I demonstrated before, it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not the therapy is more dangerous than continuing to engage in male-male sex. So what provision of the law do you think would protect you but does not protect Stutzman and Phillips?

            “We simply disagree on rights under the Constitution and what is moral and what is not.”

            I think the disagreement is about what actually counts as discrimination. Does selectivity about what ideas and opinions a baker is willing to express with his creations qualification as discrimination? I say no. Ideas are not people. It is true that targeting ideas can sometimes be used as a proxy for targeting people, but I see no indication that Stutzman and Phillips were doing that.

          • Okay, we are at stalemate. I certainly support your right to your opinion that legal commerce, supported by taxpayers, may be an area of discrimination and coercive, religious inculcation should remain lawful, but I’m happy that I am on the side of equality and the golden rule.

            I think the disagreement is about what actually counts as discrimination. Does selectivity about what ideas and opinions a baker is willing to express with his creations qualification as discrimination?

            As long as the baker is licensed to serve the public, every member of the public must be served, otherwise, it is discrimination.

            It’s been an interesting debate, but I don’t see any merit in continuing.

          • Randomutation

            “I certainly support your right to your opinion that legal commerce, supported by taxpayers, may be an area of discrimination and coercive, religious inculcation should remain lawful, but I’m happy that I am on the side of equality and the golden rule.”

            Nice passive/aggressive.

            “As long as the baker is licensed to serve the public, every member of the public must be served, otherwise, it is discrimination.”

            There is no legal precedent for that claim.
            If there was, then a Native American who refuses to make a cake for a celebration of Christopher Columbus would be guilty of discrimination against the Italians who request it. And an African American who refuses to make a cake for a celebration of the Confederacy would be guilty of discrimination against the whites who request it. And a gay baker who refuses to make a cake to celebrate someone’s “conversion” from gay to straight would be guilty of discrimination against the Christians who request it.
            Fortunately, in the above examples, the only thing the baker actually “discriminates” against is an idea. And ideas aren’t people. And in decades of civil rights litigation in federal courts there is no precedent that bridges the gap between the idea and the person who wants to celebrate the idea.

            “It’s been an interesting debate, but I don’t see any merit in continuing.”

            I agree. As long as the starting point is this dogmatic belief that discrimination against ideas constitutes discrimination against the people who want to celebrate the ideas, then further debate is impossible.
            I’ll simply predict that this dogma will be one of the first things the Supreme Court scrutinizes about this case. I can find no precedent for it in the more than 5 decades of civil rights cases in federal courts since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So, I think SCOTUS is first going to want to determine if this case really involves discrimination before they consider the conflict of rights aspect. If I’m wrong about my prediction, then feel free to gloat about my prediction 6 months or so from now. I’ll still be around.

          • As long as the starting point is this dogmatic belief that discrimination against ideas constitutes discrimination against the people who want to celebrate the ideas, then further debate is impossible.

            That is an equivocation. I am not in favor of discrimination against ideas. I am against the application of religious “law” in a secular marketplace denying some citizens equal access to commerce.

            What you call is a “dogmatic belief” is the belief in equality in the secular marketplace. What you call religious freedom is bigotry and discrimination in the secular marketplace.

            From the “New York Society for Ethical Culture”:

            the employment of religious motives to deny services in the marketplace to members of the public is of a different order. In the first place, it violates the principles that govern public accommodations that were a major political and social victory of the civil rights era.

            Such values have been ingrained in American life for half a century, and when it comes to race are no longer in debate. The public market is simply subject to different rules, and this is as it should be. Secondly, allowing merchants to provide services to whom they choose based on their individual religious criteria, opens the door wide for social anarchy. And needless to say is a powerful refuge for bigotry.

            Would you support a restaurant or a bar that serves parties inside its building for virtually any reason, but would be right in refusing to serve a gay wedding party and/or a group of Muslims celebrating an religious event in Islam?

            How about a secular wedding where the couple and the official conducting the wedding are atheists? Okay if a florist refuses to service the wedding because she believes atheists are “of the devil?”

            Finally, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring equal access to the marketplace.

          • Randomutation

            “I am not in favor of discrimination against ideas.”

            You may not be “in favor of discrimination against ideas” but do you know of any law that forbids a business from selecting which ideas they will express with their creations? Civil rights law deals with discrimination against people. Ideas aren’t people.

            “What you call is a “dogmatic belief” is the belief in equality in the secular marketplace.”

            What I call “dogmatic belief” is the persistence in a baseless narrative, while ignoring anything that weighs against the narrative. You have created a narrative in which you claim that I believe discrimination in commerce is OK. But that’s not my belief. And it’s not anything I have expressed. And it’s not anything I have implied. I’ve told you what I believe, and I have provided you with logical reasons why I believe it. You have ignored both my belief and the reasons behind my belief. And rather than dealing with those issues, you have simply persisted in the narrative you are comfortable with. Your dogma.

            “What you call religious freedom is bigotry and discrimination in the secular marketplace.”

            I haven’t called anything “religious freedom.” Looks like this make -believe ghost is just part of your dogmatic narrative.

            “Would you support a restaurant or a bar that serves parties inside its building for virtually any reason, but would be right in refusing to serve a gay wedding party and/or a group of Muslims celebrating an religious event in Islam?”

            Is the restaurant being asked to create anything expressive, or just to provide the functional items? If they provide only the functional items, then their situation is not at all like that of Stutzman and Phillips.

            “How about a secular wedding where the couple and the official conducting the wedding are atheists? Okay if a florist refuses to service the wedding because she believes atheists are “of the devil?”

            Is the florist targeting the ideas and opinions being celebrated, or targeting the people doing the celebrating? Does she serve the “”of the devil” atheists in other ways that don’t involve her creating arrangements for the celebration of their ideas and opinions?

            “Such values have been ingrained in American life for half a century, and when it comes to race are no longer in debate.”

            There is no “ingrained” value that says an African American baker would be guilty of discrimination if he refuses a group of whites who want him to make a cake for a celebration of the Confederacy. No “ingrained” value that says a Native American baker would be guilty of discrimination if he refuses a group of Italians who want him to make a cake for a celebration of Christopher Columbus. And no “ingrained” value that says a gay baker would be guilty of discrimination if he refuses a group of Christians who want him to make a cake for a celebration of someone’s “conversion” from gay to straight.

          • Civil rights law deals with discrimination against people. Ideas aren’t people.

            Yes, it is discrimination against people–one particular group of people. You can deny it all you like, but that is a fact. If you want to take the tact that it’s against an idea, then fine, then it is against the idea of one particular group of people. In the end, it affects PEOPLE.

            These folks also are against the idea of sex outside of marriage, yet they service weddings of people who have had sex outside of marriage. You can even say that since all people sin against the Christian god, then no weddings should be served.

            Would you be fine if the florist denied service to an interracial couple or a Jewish florist denying service to a Jew marrying Catholic or an avowed atheist? I would think so for consistency.

            So you think I am uncomfortable with this subject? You are quite wrong in you twisted logic. Equality–treating all citizens equality and fairly in the marketplace is not a dogma, it’s a moral act. Whereas religious discrimination is based on dogma is an immoral act. Apparently you don’t agree with the concept of the golden rule. I do.

          • Randomutation

            “If you want to take the tact that it’s against an idea, then fine, then it is against the idea of one particular group of people. In the end, it affects PEOPLE.”

            1) This “one particular group of people” is the group that celebrates same sex marriage, and it includes parents, other family members, activists, social justice warriors, even people like me. Gay and straight alike. It’s a very diverse group – not a protected class.
            2) Even if it were a protected class, the fact that a business policy “affects PEOPLE” (disparate impact) is not sufficient grounds for a charge of discrimination, except when it involves essentials like employment and housing.

            “These folks also are against the idea of sex outside of marriage, yet they service weddings of people who have had sex outside of marriage. You can even say that since all people sin against the Christian god, then no weddings should be served.”

            Thank you. You have just successfully argued that their decision to service or decline the celebration of the marriage does not depend at all on the character of the people involved. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Their decision depends only on the idea being celebrated.

            “Would you be fine if the florist denied service to an interracial couple or a Jewish florist denying service to a Jew marrying Catholic or an avowed atheist? I would think so for consistency.”

            1) let’s get rid of the strawman (again). I never said I was “fine” with Stutzman or Phillips declining service. All I’ve said is that I support their right (and everyone else’s right) to refuse to be instrumental in the celebration of an idea with which they disagree. And I have pointed out that such a policy does not constitute discrimination as long as they target the idea rather than the people celebrating the idea.
            2) You’ve got your analogy backwards. Servicing same race marriage while declining to service opposite race marriage would be analogous to servicing same sex marriage while declining to service opposite sex marriage. Not a great business model, but not illegal as far as I know.

            “Apparently you don’t agree with the concept of the golden rule. I do.”

            Nothing I have advocated here violates the golden rule. I support the right to decline to be instrumental in the celebration of an idea with which one disagrees. I support that same right for all – gay and straight, religious and atheist, Christian and non-Christian, black and white, male and female, etc. You previously asserted your right to decline to be instrumental in a celebration for someone’s “conversion” from gay to straight. If you would not want the state to compel you to provide such service, then the golden rule dictates that you not advocate that the state compel anyone else to be instrumental in the celebration of an idea with which they disagree.

          • Nothing I have advocated here violates the golden rule.

            A travesty against logic.

          • Randomutation

            When your narrative fails logical analysis, it’s time to change the narrative. Trying to salvage an illogical narrative by dismissing logic as a “travesty” is absurd.

          • You are broadcasting your lack of critical thinking. It’s a common tactic to dodge an argument by throwing it back at your interlocutor.

            You still don’t see the difference between a process that can seriously harm people and even lead to suicide and a process that joins two people in love. You can try to equivocate all you want, but your view of “harm” seems to be that of the fundamentalist, Christian or Muslim.

            Again and again, we do not live in a theocracy and same-sex marriage is between two people engaging in a harmless, legal act while a business is discriminating against them for who they are. It is religious discrimination based on bigotry.

          • Randomutation

            “You still don’t see the difference between a process that can seriously harm people and even lead to suicide and a process that joins two people in love.”

            Some marriages are harmful, others are not. Sometimes gay conversion may lead to suicide, other times it may save someone from contracting HIV, and add years to his lifespan. It’s not the bakers job to predict these outcomes. The baker’s only involvement is in the CELEBRATION of the “conversion” or the CELEBRATION of the marriage. It is just as legal to celebrate someone’s “conversion” from gay to straight as it is to celebrate same sex marriage. And if declining to service one is illegal, then declining the other one is just as illegal.

          • “Some marriages are harmful, others are not.”

            Some biblical laws are hideously harmful (even murderous) and others are not.

            While your comment is true, it is a false equivalence and an equivocation in our debate. This debate will go nowhere because you believe that celebrating a dangerous practice is a good thing and I do not. I believe in social equality under the law and you do not. I believe in non discrimination and you do not.

          • Randomutation

            “While your comment is true, it is a false equivalence and an equivocation in our debate.”

            There is no “false equivalence” whatsoever. You claim an opt out for the baker turning down the celebration of someone’s conversion from gay to straight. But not for the baker declining a celebration of same sex marriage. But legally, both celebrations have the same status. They are legally equivalent. Either both requests have to be honored, or neither of them do.

            “This debate will go nowhere because you believe that celebrating a dangerous practice is a good thing and I do not.”

            It will go nowhere because of strawmen like that one. I never said that “celebrating a dangerous practice is a GOOD thing.” (emphasis added) What I said is that the celebration is LEGAL, and just as LEGAL as celebrating same sex marriage. I said: “It is just as legal to celebrate someone’s “conversion” from gay to straight as it is to celebrate same sex marriage. And if declining to service one is illegal, then declining the other one is just as illegal.” The inability to refute that statement does not justify changing “legal” to “good”. It gives you a strawman to knock down, while failing to address the actual point.

          • I think my arguments have been clear enough. I believe in equal rights in the market place, you do not. Clear and simple.

          • Randomutation

            “I believe in equal rights in the market place, you do not. Clear and simple.”

            Clearly you don’t believe in it. You assert the right of a business to decline a celebration of someone’s conversion from gay to straight. But you deny the right to decline a celebration of same sex marriage. Your position thus is unequal between those who are having the politically correct celebration and those who are having the politically incorrect celebration. You try to justify this inequality by asserting a difference between celebrating ‘love’ vs celebrating ‘something dangerous’. But nevertheless you position is inherently unequal, even if you think it’s justified.
            My position is far more egalitarian than yours. A gay businessman can turn down the Christians’ gay conversion celebration, and the Christian businessman can turn down the celebration of SSM. The Christians who want the gay conversion celebration can find another business. Same for the group who want the same sex marriage celebration. No special rights for political correctness. Everyone has the same rights and freedoms.

          • A celebration of marriage is a celebration of love (no harm to anyone). A celebration of a KKK or any white supremacist celebration if a celebration of hate, division and racism (horrific harm in their histories and desires).

            A celebration of a “pray away the gay” is a celebration of mind control (often by coercion), which is another personally damaging activity.

            You disagree. Fine. No point in belaboring.

          • Randomutation

            I don’t disagree that gay conversion is harmful. But celebrating gay conversion is just as legal as celebrating same sex marriage. If a baker can refuse one, then he can refuse the other. And if one group can be refused because of what they want to celebrate, then the other group can be refused because of what they want to celebrate. Otherwise this “equal rights in the market place” you keep saying you support is just empty words, and what you are really supporting is privilege and special rights.

          • Yes, on SCOTUS, you are probably correct. The court is decidedly corporatist and far right conservative. I expect them to be in favor of religious discrimination in the market place because they’ve shone that they are fine with election discrimination against the poor and minorities.

            That does not make such decisions right. This court is much like the one that makd the Dred Scott decision.

          • Randomutation

            “Yes, on SCOTUS, you are probably correct. The court is decidedly corporatist and far right conservative.

            The court will scrutinize the discrimination claim because it is the logical thing to do. Period. It has nothing to do with whether or not the court is “decidedly corporatist and far right conservative”. It has everything to do with the fact that SCOTUS has never ruled that the refusal to create something to celebrate an idea constitutes discrimination against those who are doing the celebrating. Ideas aren’t people. So, they are not going to just blindly accept the contention that selectivity about ideas is the same as discrimination against people. They may rule that henceforth it does. But that’s unlikely, even for the liberal Justices.

            “This court is much like the one that makd the Dred Scott decision.”

            With the exception of one conservative justice replacing another conservative justice, this court is pretty much the same court that made the Obergefell ruling. It’s a pretty big stretch to claim that the court in the Dred Scott case “is much like” the court that decided in favor of same sex marriage.

          • I expect they will go for religious discrimination in the secular marketplace–allowing Christians to deny equality to based on religious bigotry.

          • Randomutation

            In their request for SCOTUS to review the case the ADF lawyers stressed free speech as much, if not more so than religious freedom. But as I understand how SCOTUS works, they can explore other aspects of the case as well. And they will have probably lots of friend-of-the-court briefs as well, some of which will probably raise the same discrimination question I pose here.
            IMO, this is not a case of religious freedom to discriminate, or even some kind of free speech right to discriminate. Because it’s not discrimination period. I wouldn’t call it discrimination any more than I would call it “discrimination” if an African American baker refused a group of whites who requested a cake for a celebration of the Confederacy. As long as it’s the idea that’s targeted, and not the people, I fail to see that it constitutes discrimination. And I can find no ruling in any federal court that would support a charge of discrimination.

          • IMO, this is not a case of religious freedom to discriminate, or even some kind of free speech right to discriminate. Because it’s not discrimination period.

            Of course it isn’t to you. However, IMO, to diminish the right of two people who love each other to have equal access to secular commerce–or even to approve of such diminishing–which is supported by the very taxpayers being discriminated against, is to say that the denier, and the supporter of the denier, does not support equality and freedom under the law. They do not support the right of ALL citizens to have an unfettered right to seek happiness through marriage and without religious bigotry.

            The “idea” that you keep touting is not the act. The act is two people seeking happiness in marriage. The idea of the discriminator is about who they are (homosexuals). If the idea of the discriminator is to deny them even a molecule of happiness on that day of marriage, than it is an attack THEM for who they are. There is no other reason for denying service other than the denier is against THEIR right to marry. ROOT CAUSE: religious bigotry against certain people because of who they are!

            And your African American Baker would be right in refusing to service a celebration of the Confederacy which was established for the purpose of keeping the right to buy and sell African Americans as PROPERTY (not considered humans) and beat or kill them at will. Again, this is celebrating an ACT that is murderously harmful to human beings.

            You are very articulate and apparently educated, but I cannot fathom why you cannot understand the difference between celebrating acts that seriously harm people and celebrating acts of love no matter who is loving whom.

          • Randomutation

            “If the idea of the discriminator is to deny them even a molecule of happiness on that day of marriage, than it is an attack THEM for who they are.”

            Which is not the case. There is no indication whatsoever that Stutzman or Phillips had any intention to deny anyone any happiness. All evidence in both cases indicates that they denied service only because of WHAT was being celebrated, NOT WHO was doing the celebrating, and without one bit of malice against the celebrators.

            “I cannot fathom why you cannot understand the difference between celebrating acts that seriously harm people and celebrating acts of love no matter who is loving whom.”

            I am well aware of the difference. What I am also aware of is the fact that any law affecting free speech must be content neutral. That means that the state cannot grant a higher status to a celebration of same sex marriage than they give to a celebration of the Confederacy, or to a celebration of Christopher Columbus, or to a celebration of someone’s conversion from gay to straight. And either the fundamentalist baker, the African American baker, the Native American baker, and the gay baker, all have the right do decline the messages they object to, or none of them do.

          • Stutzman or Phillips had any intention to deny anyone any happiness.

            You are misrepresenting what I said. That is a common tactic of conservatives. I said “They do not support the right of ALL citizens to have an unfettered right to seek happiness.”

            Attempting to shame certain groups because of who they are is to diminish their happiness by denying them full access to the marketplace. This makes them less than full citizens.

            But that is the ethical side of my argument.

            . . . any law affecting free speech must be content neutral.

            Yes, I agree. It is against the law for a business establishment to discriminate against a particular group of people because of who they are (e.g., denial of commerce to a same-gender marriage; denial of commerce to blacks; denial of service to a Columbus day celebration) because these groups have no history or intention of doing harm.

            Conversely, it is NOT against the law to deny service to a particular group because of the harm they represent (e.g., a black man or a known liberal refusing to service a KKK rally or a White Supremacist celebration–they would probably be putting their safety at risk; a celebration of the Confederacy (same reason as before, possible harm as that group would likely include the KKK and white supremacists.

            Nor would it be against the law for a catering establishment to deny service to a violence prone area of the city.

            In other words, one act (serving a same sex wedding) has nothing to do with harming anyone, whereas the other act (serving a confederate/kkk/white supremacist celebration) can be dangerous for some people because we know their violent history.

          • Randomutation

            “You are misrepresenting what I said.”

            No. I quoted you exactly, and then responded to it. Your attempt to pretend that my reply was in response to a different comment is belied by the fact that I had pasted your comment directly above my response to it.

            “Attempting to shame certain groups because of who they are is to diminish their happiness by denying them full access to the marketplace.”

            There is no evidence that Stutzman or Phillips were “attempting to shame” anyone.

            “It is against the law for a business establishment to discriminate against a particular group of people because of who they are”

            And there is no evidence whatsoever that Stutzman or Phillips discriminated against anyone “because of who they are”

            You claimed to “live in a fact based world”, but it turns out that all you have is innuendo

          • My bad. I did not word that first paragraph correctly. It was, however, made clear in the paragraph which I thought you were referencing. Obviously, I did not read your quote of me closely. Sorry about that.

            I meant say that “If the idea of the discriminator is to reduce their happiness on their wedding day by even a molecule, then it is an attack on THEM for who they are.”

            My apologies for my lack of self-editing.

            The rest of your post is simply your opinion against the evidence of impact by discrimination.

            There is no point in belaboring this further. To me, it is clear discrimination in the secular market place by a business licensed by a government agency to which those who were discriminated against pay their taxes to support.

            You believe in religious discrimination in society and I do not.

          • Randomutation

            “My bad. I did not word that first paragraph correctly. It was, however, made clear in the paragraph which I thought you were referencing. Obviously, I did not read your quote of me closely. Sorry about that.”

            Understood. No problem.

            “The rest of your post is simply your opinion against the evidence of impact by discrimination.”

            No, the rest of my post was based on the transcripts of the state court proceedings themselves. I’ve read them all at least twice all the way through. And some of the critical sections I’ve poured over many times word by word. It’s simply a fact that in neither of these cases was there any evidence whatsoever that Stutzman or Phillips were “attempting to shame” anyone or that they discriminated against anyone “because of who they are,” or that they intended to “reduce their happiness on their wedding day by even a molecule.” You are free to read the transcripts and find something there to prove me wrong. But the fact that you were very careful to word your statements as innuendo and insinuation rather than assertion, tells me that you already know about the absence of any such evidence.

            “You believe in religious discrimination in society and I do not.”

            That’s not a correct statement of my position. What we disagree on is the definition of discrimination. If a business won’t serve me because of my religious beliefs, that’s discrimination. However, I can find no ruling in any federal court that says it would be discrimination if the only thing they refuse is to create something symbolic that expresses my religious beliefs. I don’t define that as discrimination. Yo do. And that’s where we disagree. Maybe SCOTUS will clarify this with the Phillips case. But that’s where the impasse is in this debate. Nowhere else. So yes, there may be “no point in belaboring this further.” But at least be clear about what the impasse really is.

          • The original court case back in February of 2015 found that Stutzman violated state consumer protection and anti-discrimination law. My argument spot on.

            Look at it this way. The forest and the baker have put their SERVICE/PRODUCT on the open secular market to sell to all citizens who have the right to participate in the open market. To refuse to sell to one group is DISCRIMINATION.

            I’ve read the report on several right wing sites and without fail, they skew the decision of the courts (misinformation) saying that they were ordered by the court to PROMOTE same sex-weddings. NO! They were ordered to stop discriminating. Delivering a cake or flower arrangements to a room where a wedding is going to take place is not the same as participating or promoting the people getting married.

            On May 30, 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against David Mullins and Charlie Craig by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.​
            ——————————
            The case of the Denver baker is similar to lawsuits brought elsewhere involving florists, calligraphers and others who say their religious beliefs won’t allow them to provide services for same-sex weddings. But these objectors have found little success in the courts, which have ruled that public businesses must comply with state anti-discrimination laws.
            —————————–
            The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously in February that Stutzman had violated the state’s nondiscrimination law . . . The court found no basis to the argument that providing flowers for a same-sex wedding constituted an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

            Your argument is entirely the religious right’s deceptive argument that it is a violation of their free speech. That is likely the weakest argument I’ve ever heard. No one is denying them the right to free speech or religion or religious expression. Write letters to the editor, wear it on tee shirts, argue it in any open public forum. They have all that, but they cannot use any of that to discriminate in the secular marketplace.

            If your god forbids you to treat all citizens equally, then don’t sell a service on the open market where all citizens have the right to participate.

          • Randomutation

            “The original court case back in February of 2015 found that Stutzman violated state consumer protection and anti-discrimination law. My argument spot on.”

            1) The state court decisions are the very thing being disputed here. If the only support you have for the state court decisions is the state court decisions, then all you have is a circular argument.
            2) Even in the state court cases there was no evidence that Stutzman or Phillips were “attempting to shame” anyone or that they discriminated against anyone “because of who they are,” or that they intended to “reduce their happiness on their wedding day by even a molecule.” Your insinuations and innuendos are baseless.
            3) And even though the state courts ruled against Stutzman and Phillips, all you have to do is read the court transcripts to find out that there isn’t actually any evidence of discrimination against gays. If you disagree, then all you have to do is read the transcripts, find the evidence, post it here, and prove me wrong. Simple.

            “Look at it this way. The [florist] and the baker have put their SERVICE/PRODUCT on the open secular market to sell to all citizens who have the right to participate in the open market. To refuse to sell to one group is DISCRIMINATION.”

            There is no “group” that Phillips or Stutzman refused to service, much less a protected class that they refused to service. They wouldn’t create anything for the celebration of same sex marriage, but they wouldn’t do that for anyone of any class.

            “No one is denying them the right to free speech or religion or religious expression. Write letters to the editor, wear it on tee shirts, argue it in any open public forum.”

            Free speech includes the right to refuse to be instrumental in the expression of an opinion with which one disagrees. SCOTUS has called this the “right to refrain from speaking,” and has ruled that it’s just as much a part of free speech as the right to speak. The Supreme Court trumps any state court. So good luck with your claim that “no one is denying them the right to free speech.”

          • If the only support you have for the state court decisions is the state court decisions, then all you have is a circular argument.If the only support you have for the state court decisions is the state court decisions, then all you have is a circular argument.

            Sorry me friend, but mine is not a circular argument. I made the argument, without having read any court decisions that your claim that it was not about discrimination was wrong and that the “free speech” argument is bogus as well. All decisions so far demonstrate that I was correct and you were wrong because you were either reading only the fundamentalist suit or you were simply being misleading.

            You may as well get off of your soapbox. As I’ve said before, you are all for religious discrimination in the secular market place and I am for complete equality where no harm has or will be done either by the celebrities or by the business.

            It is clear by scientific studies that “praying away the gay” and “mind control” can be very dangerous for the victim. Were I to be ordered by the court to serve such a celebration, I would, but under protest and publication of the reason for my reluctance. Any baker or florist has the same right.

          • Randomutation

            “Sorry me friend, but mine is not a circular argument. I made the argument, without having read any court decisions that your claim that it was not about discrimination was wrong and that the “free speech” argument is bogus as well.”

            Multi-step circular reasoning is still circular reasoning. Yes, I know it’s hard to track the various segments here. But this part of the conversation started with my contention that that neither Stutzman nor Phillips discriminated against anyone for being gay. You challenged my contention, but you could cite no evidence of discrimination to refute my assertion. All you could come up with was unsupported insinuation and innuendo, which you finally tried to support with the very state court verdicts I was disputing. That’s circuitously circular, but circular nonetheless.

            “All decisions so far demonstrate that I was correct and you were wrong because you were either reading only the fundamentalist suit or you were simply being misleading.”

            No, you are the one with the fundamentalist type dogma in this case. By your own statement above, you admit to not even reading the relevant state court documentation. My contention was based on actually reading and analyzing the state court documents, in their entirety. Twice. Some sections more than twice. Searching for any scraps of evidence that Stutzman or Phillips did discriminate against anyone for being gay. And what I found is that there is no such evidence. Since you have chosen to simply fall back on the state court verdicts, without actually reading the court documents, then your approach to this issue is very much a dogmatic, non-questioning, fundamentalist approach. I know that you are capable of much better than that. And I applaud the intellectual skepticism I have seen you display on other topics. But for some reason you have blinders on when it comes to this issue, and are willing to blindly accept the court verdict as being evidence of guilt.

            “It is clear by scientific studies that “praying away the gay” and “mind control” can be very dangerous for the victim.”

            The only relevant “scientific studies“ would be any that show that CELEBRATING someone’s conversion from gay to straight ”can be very dangerous”. Without any such “scientific studies”, you’re in the same boat as the baker who doesn’t want to be instrumental in the celebration of same sex marriage. IMO you should both have the right of refusal.

            “Were I to be ordered by the court to serve such a celebration, I would, but under protest and publication of the reason for my reluctance.”

            You shouldn’t have do so under protest. No one should be compelled to be instrumental in the celebration of an idea with which they disagree.

          • Okay, you win. Have it your way. It is your right of conscience.

          • By the way, you did not actually address my question about intersexuals. How about addressing it.

          • Randomutation

            I answered all three of your questions.

  • Lydia Church

    Homosexuality is a sin. Jesus calls us all to repent and turn to Him for salvation from such sins. You can find that in God’s Word; the Bible, in Romans 1; 26-27, 1 Corinthians 6; 9-11, and Deuteronomy 18 and 20. End of argument.

    We do NOT have to do anything for gays. We must in fact REFUSE to comply with any such orders to do so because as Christians, we must obey God above man. Acts 5; 29. If we suffer for it, we suffer, that’s what Jesus said would happen to us for following Him.

    Good for this lady, I salute her!!!
    Those who don’t need to repent. You can’t serve two masters; sin and God.

    • MamaBearly

      I follow Jesus personally. But I often feel people forget the things Jesus said throughout the gospel except about sins and what punishment we can give them for what we feel are the “worst” sins. It’s like we can’t rebuke everyone for their sins, so we’ll just be hard on the sinners that we can see are sinners. So Wrong.

      I understand that in the gospel Jesus said that all the commandments, the laws, and the prophecies were covered by the last 2 commandments Jesus gave to us.
      All he wants us to do is teach everyone about Jesus’ love, about Salvation resting upon repentance, and help them to overcome their sins with support and encouragement. He said nothing about doing anything to them. He included homosexuals in the command to love thy neighbour as thyself, because they are sinners just like ever other person alive – then and now Other than Jesus of course. You are a sinner as I am and so are they.
      Anything except involvement in someone else’s sin is the same for homosexuals as it is for any other sin. Involvement in same sex marriage is the only thing Christians have the righteousness to not participate in with regard to gays. It’s not like they will ask us to come into their bedrooms for any participation, so helping out with a marriage between 2 same sexes, is the only sin that we cannot abet that involves homosexuals.
      People who do not love every one as they do themselves including homosexuals and other sinners who have not chosen to follow Jesus. He does not tell us to not love them because they are sinners.
      I wish Christians would understand the Gospel and know that Jesus said to love everyone – with no exceptions, – and that he said, that we should tell people about their sin (rebuke) and to tell them about Salvation and IF they choose to believe and follow Jesus and repent anyone in the world can be saved. If they choose not to believe; not to follow; not to repent; we are to leave them alone and leave them to what we believe will be hell when this world is over. We are supposed to wipe our hands of their dust and walk away. No Demeaning. No punishment. Just walk away. Those who do not repent will be dealt with by God, not us.
      Homosexuals have been forced to tell the whole world their sin, so they can be treated equally by law -> as every other sinner is allowed to do. Being equal is not a sin nor about any sin.
      No sinner would normally even tell another about their sins when they start at a church. The punishment of gays by not allowing them equal rights is against Jesus’ 2nd commandment.
      I do not say that they are not sinners and as such are expected, by our belief, to be damned if they don’t repent, but I believe that to follow Jesus we must love everyone and you cannot treat anyone badly just for their sins. Jesus said not to hang around them, not that we should shun them and be cruel to them. Our light is to shine to show the good of Christians and give Glory to God. We are not supposed to make anyone feel like they are worthless even if they choose not to follow Jesus. Every one has a chance to change and repent until the final days.
      We aren’t supposed to act badly towards other sinners for a really Good reason. If we do treat someone badly and it changes their mind from coming to Jesus, we are doing a big disservice to our Lord. Our behaviour is supposed to attract others to Jesus, not make them turn away. They may change their mind later in their lives but we can’t know. God knows, and wants everyone to have their chance until the end of days.
      I hope this is basically what you meant from your post?
      I didn’t see anything about love in your post and it should be included in anything about Jesus. It is all about everyone loving each other. It’s not about any thing more than being aware what are sins are and that sins must be repented for by everyone who is a believer. Love is the Bigger Commandments which are about love.
      Gods blessings!

      • Very well said, my friend.

        • MamaBearly

          It’s so good to see you here. I’m sorry I did not reply when you sent a hello before. I’ve had lot going on in my life and I tend to get involved in discussions between myself and (Christian) people who don’t know the gospel. Can you imagine? So I try to explain it often here and decided to start expanding a bit because some of them did not read my replies before answering. And then I decided that when I heard people called the silent posters were people who read the posts but did not comment or up-vote very often, I decided I should help others to understand the gospel at the same time as I was encouraging the others to re-read the gospel. I’ve really been enjoying those discussions and some of my friends have been also.
          Now, I am on a mission to stop Christians from harassing the gays. Note I did not say anything about their sin… TBH I could care less about the sin and more about making sure people keep spreading the gospel because it is our duty as followers of Jesus.
          Everyone is a sinner and that means that the way they are judging and treating the gays will be the way they will be judged about it when the time comes. It’s a sin to treat anyone badly in the first place, but Jesus said not to trouble ourselves with other sinners, because they will get damnation when they are judged. We were not told we should punish them here for the sin, and then God will punish them a second time on J.D. We do not know what God knows about each person and they are saying that they know better than God about what punishment these people should have, – before they leave earth. But he did say he will judge us and treat us the way we treat people we judge for ourselves, as we are supposed to only be about the sin. Then we are supposed to tell them all about the gospel and God gives everyone the free will to choose whether to follow him knowing that the possible punishment is eternal damnation. He wants everyone to choose to follow him so they will act with the love he wants us to have for each other. But some do not want to recognize their sins, or just do not believe and figure that they won’t find out until after death anyway if it’s true. So God lets them walk away and wants them to repent before they die and follow Jesus’ commands. It’s not exactly easy to try to live without sinning, but God knows that and if we ask for forgiveness, he will forgive us as long as we are speaking from the heart. The heart is evil and will lead us to evil, but if there is any love at all, or anything Good at all, God knows it. In general, most people who haven’t been followers would not have a big number once he considers the times that love was in their minds when they did something. God is love, and He told us that Love covers a multitude of sins. (I bet he knows the calculations before we get to him. LOL!! God is Great after all.
          I’m so glad you popped by to say hello. Hope you will stay and while and look around the comments for a while before you wander away. You can always go to the older articles to read them too, if the more recent ones don’t catch “your fancy”. I guess I’m showing my age with that adage, lol!
          Take care of yourself and I’ll probably be around here for a while if I am allowed to. Maybe we’ll talk soon.
          May God bless you often – through your journeys, with Peace and Joy.

          • MamaBearly, it’s a pleasure to chat again. While I don’t agree with your belief in a god, I salute you for your attitude and excellent interpretation of the Gospels.

            As for those in the world who wish to do harm to those who do not believe as they, while we must protect ourselves, we must also try to understand them and try to lead by example. I call this “aggressive benevolence.” Do good to those who wish you ill.

            From my research in the Gospels, you are spot on in your point of view and I respect that. I think that the Golden Rule stands above any and all desires to condemn others, especially for what they were nurtured from childhood to be.

            Were the Golden Rule humanity’s greatest motivating force, more powerful even than self interest, then that, alone, would bring peace and brotherhood. Of course that is only a dream. We are motivated mostly by the more base impulses, vestigials of instincts necessary for survival in a state of nature. Where once we were driven by them, now we can override them for the good of all.

    • Sorry my friend, but in the secular marketplace where a business person is licenced by our secular government of which ALL citizens pay taxes in support, a business person must serve ALL citizens equally. He/she may not impose religious beliefs on others in legal commerce.

      I am quite sure, however, that in this day of public and government ignorance of the Constitution as well as having no sense of equal justice or empathy under our frustrated, wannabe, child dictator, there will be many self-righteous, vote-getting, Christian impositions on others and loss of individual freedom. So, you are likely to get your way for a while.

      Individuals of religious certitude are always a soft target for the emotional rhetoric of self-serving politicians.

      I long for the day (if it ever comes) where people will do unto others as they would have others do unto them. Currently, that just isn’t the fundamentalist Christian way. It’s the greatest of all tenets and the very one most ignored.

      • Bob Johnson

        I may need to plagiarize that last paragraph.

        • Thank you sir. Have at it. Spread it around. Were all people to follow that tenet, who’s god would not be pleased?

  • MARK HARRIS

    She (or you or I ) absolutely has the right to stand tall for her own Christian (or any) principles and beliefs…but why draw fire by publicly announcing her pejorative reason? Proverbs 15:1 “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.”
    Why not just say “sorry, I can’t do it on that day.” No law requires an explanation or her reason or justification.

  • sandraleesmith46

    The discrimination was exercised by the men who sued her for declining to participate in their ceremony which VIOLATES her right to free exercise of HER beliefs; she didn’t stop them from having it or having flowers at it. But the hypocrites on the left refuse to see the hypocrisy of their demands.

  • And Dick Cheney thought torture was good for us. Thanks for playing.