Judge Rules Filmmakers Can’t Decline to Film Same-Sex ‘Weddings,’ Dismisses Preemptive Suit

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — A federal judge in Minnesota has dismissed a preemptive lawsuit filed by a filmmaking couple who are concerned that state law mandates them to create films in support of same-sex “marriage” if they also produce videos that reflect their Christian beliefs about marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, appointed to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton, ruled on Wednesday that Carl and Angel Larsen of the Telescope Media Group cannot turn away video requests by homosexuals as per the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). He also concluded that the law itself is not unconstitutional.

Tunheim said that he does not consider wedding footage as being the expressive speech of the videographer, and that the Larsens are welcome to post a disclaimer on their website that they personally do not support same-sex nuptials.

“[S]peech-for-hire is commonly understood to reflect the views of the customer,” he wrote. “Weddings are expressive events showcasing the messages and preferences of the people getting married and attendees, who do things like speak, dress, and decorate in certain ways.”

“A video of a wedding depicts this expressive event, and while videographers may exercise creative license to fashion such a video, the videographer is a ‘conduit’ for communication of the speech and expression taking place at the wedding,” Tunheim continued. “Thus, when a person views a wedding video, there is little danger that they would naturally attribute the video’s messages to the videographer.”

He also asserted that while the Larsens cannot turn down recording same-sex events, they still have control over which messages they release to the public as they do not have to post the video footage online.

“[A] major concern in the compelled speech cases is the notion that if a speaker is required to host the message of another, this will inhibit the speaker’s ability to communicate his or her own preferred message,” Tunheim wrote.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The Larsens’ planned wedding video business does not raise this concern,” he concluded, “as the MHRA would leave the Larsens free to only publicize videos of opposite-sex weddings and to affirmatively communicate their views to the public in any manner they prefer.”

As previously reported, the Larsens, who have produced videos for a number of prominent evangelical ministries, filed the preemptive suit in December as they would like to tell stories with their filmmaking skills to “impact religious, social, and cultural views about marriage by creating compelling stories celebrating God’s design for the institution.”

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

However, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has outlined that businesses, religious or not, can’t decline services related to homosexuality. Because of how the law is interpreted, the Larsens are concerned that they will be required to also produce films featuring same-sex ceremonies if they create professional videos on marriage in general.

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

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

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the religious liberties organization that represented the Larsens in court, says that it is disappointed that Tunheim found the law and its interpretation to be constitutional, and plans to appeal the ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Tolerance is a two-way street. Creative professionals who engage in the expression of ideas shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for having a particular point of view about marriage that the government may not favor,” ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement. “Public officials can’t censor filmmakers or demand that they tell stories in film that violate their deepest convictions.”


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
  • Steve Trent

    Pray for a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado cake maker, whose case will likely be heard sometime this fall or early winter. The outcome of that one will probably have long fingers of legal precedent that extend to the one discussed in this article. They would seem to be of a similar nature.

    • Michael C

      The outcome of that one will probably have long fingers of legal precedent that extend to the one discussed in this article.

      You are correct. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Masterpiece Cake Shop, it would affect all civil rights laws, federal, state, and local. It wouldn’t just affect the laws protecting gay people from discrimination. It would also definitely mean that caterers could refuse their services for interracial weddings or that tailors could refuse their services for Jewish weddings or possibly even that other stores and restaurants would be able refuse their non-wedding related services on the basis of their personal religious beliefs.

      If you don’t like civil rights laws, by all means, side with Jack Phillips.

      • Steve Trent

        And they should be able to. It’s not as though there aren’t other businesses which will provide those same services. You make a straw man argument. Why violate people’s constitutional rights to freedom of religion when it isn’t necessary to do so?

        • Michael C

          And they should be able to.

          Thank you for your honesty. Other people wouldn’t want to admit that they approve of businesses being able to discriminate against customers on the basis of their race or religion.

          You make a straw man argument.

          Perhaps you don’t understand what this term means. You stated one ramification of a Supreme Court decision in Masterpiece Cake Shop’s favor. I elaborated. Sorry, that’s not a straw man.

          Why violate people’s constitutional rights to freedom of religion when it isn’t necessary to do so?

          Here in the United States, we decided over half a century ago that we should all have the same basic right to equal treatment in the public sphere. This means that we affirmed our individual rights of employment, housing, and trade/commerce regardless of our religion, race, sex, etc. Our personal differences shouldn’t prevent us from being able to live out our daily public lives.

          You appear to oppose non-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because you believe that businesses should be able to do as they please.

          I respect your right to this viewpoint but I disagree with it.

          • Steve Trent

            Living out one’s religious convictions should not be excluded from the public realm. True faith must find expression in every arena of the believer’s life. If it is compartmentalized it is not true faith. If a same sex couple wants a wedding cake, let them find a baker who will do it for them. Why force someone to violate their conscience when there are other options? And behind the facade of anti-discrimination is an agenda to force secularization on Americans.The plain words of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been extended and extrapolated over time by the judiciary to justify this agenda. Most of the founders are turning over in their graves.

          • Michael C

            Living out one’s religious convictions should not be excluded from the public realm. True faith must find expression in every arena of the believer’s life.

            I don’t disagree with you. Neither does the law.

            Nothing in the law forces a business to offer wedding related services or products to the general public if the business owner would object to providing these products or services to the public, at large.

            If a business feels that they would be compromising their personal religious beliefs by providing certain products or services to the general public (including those with whom they may oppose, theologically), they should not offer those products or services in the first place.

            If a business wishes to only serve customers with whom they share common religious affiliation, and if they only wish to provide products and services of a religious nature, theirs shouldn’t be classified as a “public accommodation” and civil rights laws wouldn’t apply.

          • Blake Paine

            Living out one’s religious convictions should not be excluded from the public realm.

            They aren’t. If someone thinks they can’t respect the public’s civil rights selling one thing, sell them something else instead. Really want to sell that something do so as a private membership business.

            No one forced these business owners to make these offers but what they can’t do is pretend their wares are available to all and then refuse responding customers because of their beliefs.

            That is the best possible answer the court will reach, that the business must to open about their prejudices from the outset, a pyrrhic victory.

            Oregon bakery closed their storefront before the state had reached any ruling due to lack of business, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner says he has lost 40% of his business though he only made 1 wedding cake a month. Once people can’t hide their religious prejudices the marketplace will do the rest.

          • Beamer

            We have the right to have our religious beliefs. We do not have the right to make another person’s life hard.
            In case you didn’t know, not all Christians are like these one.
            Please try to remember there are more Christians who believe that they should love everyone and treat everyone the way they want to be treated, it’s just that they don’t get into the media.
            Just wanted to make sure you are aware of the ones you might not have heard about.

          • Trilemma

            ”Living out one’s religious convictions should not be excluded from the public realm. True faith must find expression in every arena of the believer’s life.”
            Not true. Suppose a person’s religious conviction was that he must kill infidels. Should his religious conviction be excluded from the public realm? To be true, his faith must find expression in every area of his life, such as at work.

          • james blue

            I have to say I find that argument lazy, hyperbolic and a bit of a straw man. He’s not talking (at least not on this subject) about forcing others to accommodate his faith. He’s not asking them to forgo cakes, he’s asking them to not force him to supply them for something he disagrees with.

          • Trilemma

            Steve Trent made a generalized statement that advocated unrestricted free exercise of religion. I picked an extreme case to show that the free exercise of religion has to have limits. So there has to be a line drawn between what’s acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to the free exercise of religion. He’s most definitely talking about forcing others to accommodate his faith. If someone goes into his store to buy a wedding cake and he declines because of his faith, then that someone is going to have to accommodate his faith by going somewhere else. If this were in a small town and the alternate was 30 miles away, then that becomes a big accommodation being made for his faith.

            When it comes to cakes and flowers, which are primarily products, I think sellers should not be able to discriminate. When it comes to wedding photography, you’re basically hiring someone. I think people, such as wedding photographers, should be able to decline an offer of employment for any reason.

          • james blue

            I disagree with your definition of accommodation.

            I don’t think anyone owes me anything,

          • Trilemma

            Conversely, do you think you don’t owe anyone anything?

          • james blue

            DO I “owe”? NO. Do I mind giving? NO. Would I refuse service to anyone because of their race, religion, sexuality etc? NO Do I think I should have the right to regardless? YES

            Just like free speech I might disagree with what you say, I may even find what you say repugnant and call you out on it, but I will defend your right to say it. I would not do business with a company that refused to sell cakes to gays or Christians, but I will defend their right to make that business decision.

          • Beamer

            I have been told that the gays will only go after a business that is outright rude about not serving them, and if there is no other business that can do the service.
            All they want is the equal rights everyone has, and Jesus would give them that because he told us to love everyone, and to treat everyone the way we want to be treated.
            Expressing our disagreement with the SSM is one thing, but treating anyone badly for any reason is going against God’s Word. We should tell them about salvation and leave them to choose, just like all of us chose to believe.
            There is nothing that we shouldn’t do because Jesus told us to treat people properly and whether they are sinners or not, they are people.

            Jesus never told us to punish sinners ourselves. He told us to tell sinners about Salvation. He never told us to deny them anything. Because we are all sinners.
            By not serving the people “because it is against our Faith” is wrong because of the love that we are supposed to have for everyone.
            Jesus never gave any exceptions to those commandments. He didn’t say Love everyone ‘except…’ He told us to tell sinners about their sin, and to leave them alone if they choose not to believe.
            He didn’t even tell us to hound unbelievers, like some Christians seem to think they should do.
            Wouldn’t it be amazing if Jesus told these Christians that the door was already shut when they cried Lord Lord, because they did not treat all properly with love and caring.
            Helping with a SSMarriage is not abetting a sin. Marriage is not a sin. The homosexuality is the sin. You can’t abet that sin, unless you are in the room participating.
            I think the excuses Christians come up with to not serve gays are very wrong because everyone of them go against Jesus’ Commandments.
            I wouldn’t want to be them at Judgement time.

          • jumpstart

            So I will just embrace abortion, after all it’s the law. I try to love abortionists but if they want an abortion cake I would refuse. The God of the Bible says you are either for me of against me. When I read Proverbs 6:16-19 I realize that God in his perfect love does hate certain behavior and there will be consequences. We are to be in the world, not of it. I have never seen LGBT preach their agenda to a Muslim. I have seen Muslims handcuff a gay person and push them off the top of a 4 story building. Don’t hear much push back from the LGBT fringe on that form of intolerance. Sharia is here and it will get interesting.

          • Beamer

            I never said we have to “embrace” sin. Never. But because all people are sinners, we are not to treat them badly, and especially not just for their sin.
            You can love people and hate the way they behave, if it is a sin, but you still have to treat them with care while you tell them about Salvation.
            I am very much FOR the Lord, and I am confident that he knows that.
            Just because you have not HEARD or seen something happen, does not mean it does not happen. It just means you have not experienced it or heard of it yourself. It’s not possible to hear about everything that happens in the world, when you think about it.
            I’ve heard of the Sharia way of dealing with homosexuals, and I totally disagree with it, obviously. But that is the Muslims, not Christians.
            You are obviously familiar with the bible so you must know that many of the signs are beginning to show in the world. We were told that these things have to happen and to watch and wait. The world is obviously deteriorating in practically every other way, but our faith must be strong and we have to trust the Lord that things are going as they must, and that he will take care of us when it is the hardest if we can keep the faith and not give up. He told us many will “wax cold” and if your faith in God is not strong enough you will fall.
            It isn’t an easy thing to stay calm and trust that God is not going to let us down. With all the things that are going on in the world, personally I think it would be nice to be on a boat in the middle of the ocean away from it all. But knowing that we have God is our strength in these times.
            Hatred of people is not of God. Hatred of sin is. But being caring and loving is also what we are supposed to be according to Jesus.
            If you show hate towards any person why would they want to listen to you about Salvation? Spreading the Gospel and helping more people understand about salvation, is all we are supposed to do. Speaking of sin is part of Salvation.
            I pray you will find peace with what I have said, and that you will look to God when the things in this world (their world) begin to stress you out. Ask him to take the stress away and believe that he will, and you will feel the difference. I’ve done it and have experienced the calm afterwards. God bless!

          • Beamer

            Very well said! I applaud you!

          • james blue

            You appear to oppose non-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because you believe that businesses should be able to do as they please.

            Speaking for myself (and I believe I may have conversed with you before on this specific) — There is a difference between saying government cannot discriminate and forcing the private sector to accommodate, or government telling you you have to discriminate. I objected to Crow laws forcing private business to discriminate as much as I object to the “reverse” solution.

        • Blake Paine

          It was the business that violated the customer’s civil rights when they invited the public and then refused some that responded because of what their beliefs allowed them to do with their purchase.

          Why did they advertise to the public when they had no intention of treating the responding public as the law requires? Is that part of their faith?

          • Steve Trent

            Perhaps it was because the business was started before same sex marriage was legal in that state. And as I stated before, “public” should not be construed to cover all circumstances. It’s not the only issue here and should not be used as a reason to force people to do business in a way that tramples their other constitutional freedoms.

            We would not be having this discussion except all this falls in the context of a society that has lost (forfeited) it’s moral compass so as to recognize same sex unions as “marriage.”

          • Blake Paine

            Perhaps it was because the business was started before same séx marriage was legal in that state.

            Actually this business was started just for filing this case it seems and its irrelevant anyway since same-séx couples have been able to engage in belief-based marriages forever.

            The public isn’t a ‘circumstance’ its a group of people. And there is no constitutional freedom to run a business illegally and there certainly isn’t one for a business owner to require their customers or employees for that matter to have or act like they have certain beliefs.

          • jumpstart

            Spot on. The left has traded “equality” for morals.

          • Beamer

            Most of these businesses were in place before gay marriage was made law. Do you know how much higher unemployment would be if all those businesses had to out of business because of this one issue?
            You are going to tell me that a business that has operated for 50 years should just give it up if they don’t want to serve gays?

          • Bob Johnson

            Well that is what happened to bars that allowed smoking. One day the government passed a law and suddenly the bartender had to tell longstanding customers no.

            And in another government intervention, many longstanding businesses had to remove signs that said “Whites Only”.

            Business are generally not grandfathered from new laws, otherwise there would be no point to the SEC or EPA or a host of other regulatory agencies.

        • jjgrandisland

          But the point is the business owner is breaking a duly established law on the books. Remember, we do not have a constitutional right to operate a business in the public square which breaks the law. Would you protect the rights of a pacifist business owner who refuses to follow the disability act protecting wounded war veterans? Please think about this very hard before you respond.

          • Steve Trent

            Duly established law decided by those who disregard God’s law.

          • jjgrandisland

            Actually I suggest you go and read Matthew 22:21 Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” I think baking cakes are in Caesar’s column.

          • Steve Trent

            And I would suggest you read Acts 5:28-29: “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
            Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!”

            Rendering unto Caesar has it’s limits. By your reasoning I should idly sit back and not protest my tax dollars being used to fund abortion.

          • jjgrandisland

            You should follow my reasoning. You are welcome to protest your tax dollars all you want… but that comes with a price…Caesar has lots of ways of collecting.

      • Cady555

        Just remember, anti discrimination laws protect religion too. If these laws are overturned, bakers can refuse to make cakes for christian weddings. Christians will not be in the majority forever. The measure you apply to others will be applied to you.

        • Beamer

          Yeah treating them the same way will “FIX” those Christians.
          People should not lower themselves to behave the same way they were treated. They should prove they are better than them and treat them properly.
          Gays are not like the Christians who refuse to serve gays. They are generally a much kinder community. The only ones that would agree to this are the ones that have a vendetta against Christians.
          Also there are plenty of Christians that do treat them properly – you won’t hear about them unless you ask around, because we don’t make a fuss so we don’t get into the media.
          It’s ok to hate Christians, as each to their own, but unless you are being attacked by someone you should tone down your hatred.

          • vicnicholls

            Respectfully disagree. I’ve got people who support gay marriage that will tell you that with nothing to stand on from my behavior or actions, the gay people treated me worse knowing that I disagreed with the concept due to the Bible.

          • Beamer

            Thank you for your reply. I’m sorry you are treated badly for your beliefs.
            I am rarely treated badly, but I’m sure part of that is that I am a elderly woman. I also smile a lot, which makes me less of a threat, maybe.
            I’ve been aware of some gays who avoid us, but basically, I act with Love towards everyone and it’s hard to be angry with someone who won’t react to their ummm gayness?
            I believe that Jesus told us to love everyone and treat each other the way we want to be treated. And that is how I live.
            You are being treated/thought of as a “bad” Christian it’s because those Christians who gain media attention are so blatantly hateful towards gays. I guess it depends on who has treated them badly before and why they think you are like the media Christians.

            I find treating people the way I want to be treated really works!
            It makes it a lot harder to be misunderstood as a hater, when you are always kind and friendly. It’s a pity that we have to suffer people hating us, because of the way others react, but I just keep trying.
            I don’t know whether you want to be on better terms with the gays or not, but I do hope you can show them that not all Christians are haters.

            God bless you!

          • vicnicholls

            Tried that. As I said, even the non Christians saw there was no blemish on my record. They admitted the lady was in the wrong, and should not have been cursing rude at me. She ended up trying to make amends but I felt it best to tell her of the circumstances and that maybe she needed to reconsider that people are going to have a view of her and me totally opposite and that it was not positive on her part.

            She made her choice. I chose to stay until she did what she did in hopes that maybe Christ would finally count her as one of His own. She’s with her father now, sadly.

          • Beamer

            Well, don’t give up trying. At some point someone will notice and hopefully change some of the attitudes.
            Are you talking to them about salvation when you are being spoken to rudely? That would make a difference if they felt that you were judging them by what you were saying.
            Were your friends that supported gay marriage there helping the others to accept you? It helps when you have a foot in the door with a friend usually.
            I wish the Christians like us would stand up for our faith and get the reputation of Christians back to when I was a child and believed that Christians were people you could turn to in times of trouble.
            But I think God has many people approaching many non-believers in different ways so they can reach the people that are reached by each method. It’s unfortunate that some Christians think they have the right to be judge, jury and the person to punish them for people who sin, when Jesus told us not to because we are all sinners.
            If you truly want to get through to the gays that you are not against them as persons, but only feel that you need to talk about salvation so they know it, and can choose it freely of their own will, I have found it easiest to do when I bluntly told them that I didn’t hate them, but I just want them to know about salvation and then I’d leave it to them. They listened, but at the time, no one turned to Jesus. That doesn’t mean that none of them have or will turn to Jesus since then. A lot of the time when we spread the Word of the Lord we do not get to see the ‘fruits’ of our labour, but I like to think I’ve made some people at least think about it and consider it and hopefully some have chosen it.
            Keep spreading the gospel and don’t give up. There will be a time that you try and you can get through to someone. But if you don’t try, it won’t happen.

            I pray you will have some success at spreading the gospel and blessing some people with the Love of Jesus.

          • jjgrandisland

            But you need to remember her reaction is a result of your actions. I rarely get up in anyone’s face on their beliefs. But one day one of your so called “truth faith” followers were protesting our church picnic. This idiot with a sign frightened by 7 year old daughter. I tried to explain how hurtful he was being…to a 7 year old. I sized the dude up…realized I could have easily reduced him to a bloody pulp along with taking his sign and sticking it some place very painful. But I did not. I had a long talk later with my child about turning her cheek. Today she is an amazing woman in her second year of college with a perfect 4.0 gpa. The man who harassed us most likely remains in his broken down trailer park hoping DJT is his messiah and will finally move him up to a double wide.

          • jjgrandisland

            How have gay people treated you so badly? Because they respond to you waiving your bible in their face? Oh you poor persecuted person. Please…the martyr role is just pathetic.

          • vicnicholls

            Had you read farther down, that wasn’t the issue, which is easily proven. Since you are making totally unsubstantiated accusations and are being rude, I suggest you take your behavior up with the moderators.

          • jjgrandisland

            I can only judge you by what you write. Sounds like you are on a mission to buy your way through the Pearly Gates. I am not sure that is how it works. But maybe you know better?

        • Steve Trent

          I’m okay with that. I’d just look for a baker that had no compunctions about doing so. Live and let live. And I think the time is already past when Christians were in the majority in the USA. And therein lies the rub. Apparently, the biggest part of our society, and especially those in power, no longer identify with the world view of our founders and so they feel a need to put a spin on the words they wrote in our founding documents. I mean, how in he world can he 14th amendment be construed to give a woman the right to murder the human life in her womb when it becomes an impediment to her pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

        • mr goody two shoes

          I would rather buy from people who held nothing against me. U want to force people to sell to u.

          • jjgrandisland

            I too would prefer this but I do not want to have to walk around my public square thinking people have the right to slam the door in my face. That is what black people had to suffer in the 1950’s. Oh right…you have never had to fear this. I am sure your mammy and pappy who were working at the Woolworths counter told you these stories.

    • jjgrandisland

      Just so you know I am praying for the couple which Mr. Phillips decided to discriminate against. I hope their marriage was joyous and they, their families, and their congregation have lived a great life since this bad business owner decided to evangelize his faith upon them. Mr. Phillips may believe he is right…I just hope the SCOTUS teaches him how our system works in this country.

  • Scott Davenport

    there is little danger that they would naturally attribute the video’s messages to the videographer.”

    GOD does the attributing that we are concerned with, you pinheads….wow. I’m sure the judge will be answering for this when he faces God. This is what they don’t get…just because they are comfortable with burning in Hell away from Jesus, we kinda have a problem with that…..

    I will NEVER cater to abominations against God….and neither should anyone else. Come to a God friendly state and get out of those liberal infested dens of evil.

    • brucewang

      “GOD does the attributing that we are concerned with, you pinheads….”

      Then let God do it.

    • JimmyJoeJohn

      “GOD does the attributing that we are concerned with, you pinheads”

      Then LET HIM and stay out of it yourself! You aren’t God!

      • Beamer

        Speaking to you like he did is against God’s word too.
        It is actually supposed to be left up to God.
        We are just supposed to tell them about Salvation and let them choose for themselves whether to believe and follow Jesus. Other than discussing sin in general, we are not supposed to be punishing anyone for sins here on earth. It is up to God to judge them, not us.
        Many Christians get that wrong a lot. It’s a sad reality.

    • Beamer

      What about the love we are supposed to have for everyone as Jesus commanded for us to have. And what about the commandment to Treat everyone the way you want to be treated.
      Or about the way Jesus told us to behave well at all times so we will be a light to bring more to Jesus?
      Jesus did not say to withhold anything from sinners. He told us to tell them about Salvation and to leave them to their choice once they know about it.
      He never said to treat anyone badly because of their sin. He just told us to tell them about their sin.
      Do you honestly think that Jesus would refuse to serve anyone at all?
      If we are supposed to reflect Jesus then we should do what Jesus would do in the same situation.
      Being rude and refusing a customer for any reason is against Jesus’ Word, even if they are sinners.

      I hope you know that there will be some people who don’t treat people well, that will not make it into heaven. If you think that it is ok to treat anyone badly because of their sins, you deserve to be treated badly for yours, as all of us are sinners.

      Christians are supposed to be humble people, not arrogant and acting superior to others.
      Christians like you ruin the reputation of Jesus by making him look like he doesn’t love everyone when he said he does.
      Besides which, some people will turn to Jesus and repent of their sins and no one on earth can predict who, and we are not supposed to make it harder for anyone to turn to Jesus.
      The way you act when you even hear the word gay is obviously more hate than love and you don’t even act like you believe that some of them will turn and repent.

      Have fun on Judgement Day. I personally don’t envy you if you don’t change your ways and follow Jesus’ Word.

      • jumpstart

        you might want to read Proverbs 6:16-19. Our perfect loving God had a few issues with immoral behavior, seven things He hates.

        • Beamer

          The things God hates are all sins, and it’s pretty clear that
          he hates sin. He never says he hates persons, just the sin that they do. Jesus told us to love everyone and to treat everyone the way we want to be treated.
          I believe that the idea is that if you love someone you will not want to hurt them, and if everyone loved everyone then they would not sin against each other.
          Thanks for the reply. I hope I helped you realize that we are supposed to treat each other well, regardless of their sin – or our sin.
          Blessings!

    • jumpstart

      They don’t believe that there is a God above their law. Karl Marx had three main goals. Destroy capitalism, Dethrone God and rewrite history. This is what the left embraces. Lenin called the masses “useful idiots”. Hillary called them “deplorables”. Vultures of a feather flock together.

  • meamsane

    So which Constitution is the “judge” referring to here, the imaginary one inside his head, or the actual written Constitution?

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      they tore up the written one long ago ….

      “The law is in my mouth.” Thus spoke King John of England before he was forced at the point of a sword on June 15, 1215 A.D to sign the Magna Carta

    • NCOriolesFan

      More like his imaginary one like SCOTUS used to abortion and SSM.

      • Blake Paine

        Abortion was with the ‘right to privacy’. When we can force a person to donate a kidney to Uncle Moe then we can force someone to gestate a baby, not before.

        The court only ruled on the 14th amendment and how it deals with civil contracts of marriage from other states. Because the federal government recognizes all state-license civil contracts like that, they are good anywhere federal law applies and through all levels of government to the citizen as required by the 14th amendment. All the court did was say ‘yes this is true’ and then said since the civil contract is good everywhere and it involves a fundamental right it should be available everywhere.

        • NCOriolesFan

          Like I already said “IMAGINARY.”

          • Blake Paine

            if you think ‘imaginary’ is a synonym for ‘actual’ is the the only way that works.

  • upload

    I want to get married by him, and I want to have the most vile, reprehensible things in my vows.

    • bowie1

      A videographer is not an licensed officiant.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Civil disobedience is consistent with christian conduct and with american history ……… Chuck Baldwin ………

    • brucewang

      Of course you would think so, anything where you don’t get your way that involves holding your breath until you turn blue, stamping your feet, etc. is what you do. That’s the fundamentalist way.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        ignored ………….

        • brucewang

          Oh, but you didn’t.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ………… batmang ……….

    • JimmyJoeJohn

      Not any Christians I’ve ever heard of.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        so when the founders of this country used civil disobedience during the revolutionary war …. your opinion is that they were not … what ………..

      • Beamer

        Some of us are not like Amos. We believe in a Loving God and we treat people the way we want to be treated and Jesus’ commandment to love everyone.
        We just don’t get into the media so we are not well known. That’s why I post here to people who show hate for general Christians. Not all Christians behave like these do, Thank the Lord!

  • Jack Furio

    Will this apply to Muslim video companies, or only Christian ones?

    • Michael C

      Will this apply to Muslim video companies…?

      yes.

      civil rights laws apply to businesses regardless of the religious beliefs of the business owner.

      • Steve Trent

        So you are saying that the business owner does not have the right to allow his business to be an extension of his religious beliefs?

        • Michael C

          So you are saying that the business owner does not have the right to allow his business to be an extension of his religious beliefs?

          I absolutely did not say that. In the US, we have the freedom to live our lives in accordance with our personal religious beliefs.

          If a business owner wishes to offer products or service that carry religious significance, they’re totally free to structure their business in such a way that would allow them to only provide these products and services to those with whom they share religious beliefs.

          • Cady555

            They can choose to sell only religious products.

            But they still cannot refuse to sell those products to a customer based on protected factors.

            If you are selling bibles to the public, I can buy one no matter why I want it.

        • Blake Paine

          Sure they can, they just can’t do it by making offers to the public and then picking and choosing those with the ‘right beliefs’ from those that respond.

          Boy Scouts of America were found not to have to obey civil rights laws because they were a private membership organization. Can’t walk in off the street and ask to earn a camping merit badge, you have to be a member and only they are given that opportunity.

          I’ve often wondered why some enterprising person hasn’t set up a ‘Costco for Christianists’ so that they could sell all services and items as their religious prejudices require to just the members in good standing only.

      • jumpstart

        Go on the internet and watch muslims handcuff and push a faggot off the top of a 4 story building. Get in their face and tell them about the law. Then stand back…………………way back. Sharia is here and the terror is just starting.

        • Garbage Adams

          Your use of the f- word is very telling.

        • Beamer

          Exactly why are you in such a panic? Unless you are actually there in those countries you will not be affected by it right now anyway.
          I’m not concerned about the Muslims and their Sharia law. If they try to convert me, I will refuse in a way that will make them angry and they will kill me. That way I can be with God, instead of suffering here on earth.
          Whatever is going to happen is under God’s control, if you believe of course.
          There are Muslims that believe in Sharia law punishment for gays, but there are also Muslims that do not believe in that punishment. Just as there are Christians that believe you should show hate of the person who is the sinner as opposed to the Christians that want to help people turn to Christ with love and support to help them repent for their sins,
          There will always be the good and the bad people in the world, and there always has been.
          Keep calm and that will let you think about what you must do yourself to get through the problems you expect to happen. Knowing that you have a plan will help you to feel like you have more control over it all and help you stay calm. I say this to help you.
          Blessings!

    • Liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Gay & Straight …. it doesn’t matter who you are. If you operate a business for the purpose of turning a profit, you have to abide by prevailing civil rights laws.

  • “Weddings” in scare quotes, natch.

    A business is not a church. As a business owner you have every right to determine which products or services you wish to offer to paying customers. You do NOT have the right to deny those products or services to certain people just because you have theological disagreements with them.

    I would say the same thing to a Gay couples that runs a bakery or any other business. If Carl and Angel Larsen want to pay them for a particular product or service, the Gay couple cannot turn them away because of the Larsen’s religious beliefs.

    • brucewang

      The scare quotes are in bad taste. You can voice your disapproval with something without denying that it exists.

    • Steve Trent

      I wish this were actually true that business owners actually had the right to choose what products and services they offer to the public. That certainly did not apply in Stormans v. Wiesman where pharmacy owners in Olympia, WA were told by the state they had to offer the morning after pill abortifacient. And SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

      • Tangent002

        Morning-after contraception pills are not abortifacients.

        • Steve Trent

          They are if you believe human life begins with contraception as do the owners of the pharmacy and as I do then it is an abortifacient. And that is the point. It’s what the Storman’s believed and the state was coercing them to offer it for sale. And it’s not as though there were no other pharmacies on Olympia where the morning after pill could be procured.

          • Tangent002

            Plan B and EllaOne act by preventing ovulation. If there is already a ‘bullet in the chamber’, so to speak, they will not prevent fertilization, nor will they interfere with embryo implantation in the uterine wall.

          • Blake Paine

            No since the ‘morning after pill’ is just high dose birth control to try and stop ovulation. An ovum is good for 24 hours, but sperm can be viable for 3 days. All the morning after pill does is try and stop an egg from being released during the time of sperm viability. If one already has, or it hasn’t stopped it conception can still occur. This is why there is about a ⅓ failure rate with the treatment and why it is imperative the customer not have to ‘shop around’ to find a pharmacy that carries it. Time is of the essence.

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            He is right about the morning after pill. It can prevent a fertilized egg form attaching to the uterus.

            Plan B one- step is one tablet that contains levonorgestrel, a hormone that has been used in many birth control pills for several decades. Plan B one-step contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel than birth control pills, but works in a similar way to help prevent pregnancy.

            It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that plan B One-Step may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg)

            OR BY PREVENTING ATTACHMENT (IMPLANTATION) TO THE UTERUS (WOMB).

            Therefore Steve Trent is correct about it being an abortifacient..

          • Blake Paine

            But if that were the case then all birth control does the same thing so we are talking about pharmacies that sell birth control pills but not plan B.

            The words that come to mind are ignorant or hypocritical. Both bad in a pharmacist.

          • jumpstart

            “Time is of the essence”?. They should have thought of that before they engaged in normal sex.

          • Blake Paine

            Ah the should monsters have arrived.

      • Cady555

        Pharmacies are subject to more regulation than bakers and photographers.

        • Steve Trent

          Yes, but I don’t see what bearing that has on this issue.

    • NCOriolesFan

      The Larsen’s are not that stupid to patronize a gay business like gays are with Christian business’.

      • james blue

        Okay then it shouldn’t matter if we remove “religion” as a category from big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws

      • Michael C

        There are no “gay businesses” that refuse to serve Christian customers. They don’t exist.

        Every business in the US owned by a gay person is prohibited by law from discriminating against Christians.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          and yet they do and have been recorded doing so …..

          • Beamer

            Please provide us with one law suit.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            dont need a lawsuit …. need the recording … (strong language warning …. from the “gay” bakers)

            Christian Man Asks Gay Bakeries To Make Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake
            youtube;com/watch?v=9ixvPz1PIHI

            Cut The Cake Florida bakery DISCRIMINATES against Joshua Feuerstein
            youtube;com/watch?v=BrnpRvQlAcA

            change the ; to a .

          • Garbage Adams

            YouTube videos are the trash heap of the internet.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ………..

          • Blake Paine

            Refusing a cake design isn’t the same as refusing the customer. None of the cases in lawsuits have been about the cake design. A business can have policies about derogatory language or designs, they can’t refuse a customer to sell one customer something and refuse the next the same thing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they refused BOTH …………

          • Blake Paine

            Nope only the design.

          • Michael C

            and yet they do and have been recorded doing so …..

            *citation needed

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            see below ……. (strong language warning …. from the “gay” bakers)

            Christian Man Asks Gay Bakeries To Make Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake
            youtube;com/watch?v=9ixvPz1PIHI

            Cut The Cake Florida bakery DISCRIMINATES against Joshua Feuerstein
            youtube;com/watch?v=BrnpRvQlAcA

            change the ; to a .

          • Michael C

            Oh. Okay.

            The “examples” you’ve provided are exactly as I would’ve expected from you.

            You’re not a serious person to be taken seriously.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “serious person to be taken seriously”

            right … they refused service …. hung up the phone on him ….. and thats all you have ….

          • james blue

            They didn’t refuse to sell a cake to him, they refused to write a particular message on a cake. A Christian baker can refuse to write “there is no God” on a cake.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Gay” marriage is wrong ….. was the message …. and many of them did not even get to the point of saying they would just make the cake ….. they just hung up ….. as well as all the foul language a business owner should know better than to use with a customer ………….

          • james blue

            Think you are seeing things you want to see.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i think people are showing just how intolerant they are of others by not being able to be told they are simply WRONG ….. and that somehow “you are WRONG” has become “hateful” ……… and then wonder why many call them SNOWFLAKES …..

          • james blue

            Self awareness is not a strong personal characteristic with you, is it?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            not sure what that means ……….

          • Blake Paine

            So neither the event or the customer was refused but the actual design of the cake was. That has nothing to do with any of these cases since no one in any of them have asked for anything they wouldn’t have done or sold for the previous customer.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they refused BOTH ……….. no “design” was even discussed …… but i will give you that one of the shops said they would make it and give them the icing ………

          • Blake Paine

            Right they tried to accommodate the customer on the design. The customer wasn’t refused only one aspect of their design.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and all the bad language and epithets ……..

  • Croquet_Player

    Don’t want to serve the general public? For whatever reason? Don’t open a business to the general public.

    • JimmyJoeJohn

      A five-year old should be able to figure that out!

  • Steve Trent

    I think I have the solution to this controversy. We just have bakers whose conscience would be violated in catering same sex weddings to amend their advertising to specify: “We make opposite sex only wedding cakes.” There, that should sufficiently narrow the range of goods and services sufficiently to accomplish the purpose. It’s like an auto repair business open to the public that only works on Toyotas. If you want your Ford or Chevy worked on you go somewhere else.

    • Blake Paine

      And then I would come in and say “Great! That will suit my needs for my same-séx wedding perfectly!” (FYI: they look exactly the same). The deli can decide to only sell kosher things but they can’t require their customers to use them in a kosher manner.

      Oh and its the bakery with the obligation, not any particular baker. Elane Photography in New Mexico admitted they had hired contract photographers in the past, if they don’t want to take the pictures/decorate the cake/arrange the flowers/etc then let someone else. The ‘conscience’ person can take the day off.

    • Tangent002

      What is the material difference between a cake made for an opposite-sex wedding vs. a same-sex one?

      • Cady555

        They sprinkle gay cootie powder on the cake for the same sex wedding?

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        irrelevant ……….

      • mr goody two shoes

        Queer cakes are awful gross .

      • Beamer

        I believe it is because they write their names on the cake that causes the problem. Most wedding cakes have the couple’s names and writing the names of 2 people of the same sex umm somehow makes it abet the sin… yeah right.
        Maybe if they had names that sounded like opposite sexes they would not care? lol!
        I’m don’t really believe that doing things for a wedding is abetting a sin. It is not helping them commit the sin, it is doing a service, which Christians are supposed to do for others.
        The wedding of gays can only happen if they are gays in the first place, which is the sin they disagree with. Without the initial sin of being gay, the marriage is a mute point. The only way someone can abet a homosexual relationship – if you can imagine a Christian doing this – is to be in the bedroom and participating in some measure. I always think of handing the oils to them as something that would abet the sin LOL
        I don’t believe that anything we do to serve a wedding no matter who is the couple, is showing support when it is your business to do it. It says nothing about supporting the wedding if it is a normal part of your life to do that service.
        I am Christian but I know that God wants us to love each other and treat each other with love and respect just as we want to be treated ourselves.
        Anyway, that is why the cakes are “different”- just the names.
        Get a cake and put your names on yourself easily makes it none of their business who the cake is for. (not that I want you to hide it, but it’s NOT their business in reality)
        Blessings!

        • jjgrandisland

          I personally have never seen a wedding cake with names on them…except sheet cakes made at the local supermarket.

          • Blake Paine

            Yeah, I have no idea what these people are talking about either. I have never seen a ‘wedding cake’ with writing on it at all. The office party celebrating the wedding, yeah, but not an actual wedding cake.

          • jjgrandisland

            But you know these people just make up things as they go. I think it comes down to the fact that they love playing the martyr roles. At times I think we should let loose the lions! Maybe then they would be happy.

          • Beamer

            Really! Wow. Ok so maybe not everyone does that! Thanks for your reply!

          • jjgrandisland

            Just trying to be helpful.

      • jjgrandisland

        There is no difference. These people are just evangelizing their faith and believing somehow it will get them through the Pearly Gates.

    • Michael C

      I wouldn’t mind purchasing an “opposite sex wedding cake” for my very gay wedding.

      • jjgrandisland

        My husband and I did 11 years ago. The baker was amazing and created this carrot cake with white icing and lavender flowers. My two nieces had the same cakes made for their weddings because the memories were so fond. I know this sounds kinda gay but both my husband and I wore our USMC uniforms for the ceremony. Does anyone have anything to say about this…if so..be duly warned.

    • james blue

      Kind of like “Whites only pies”?

    • jumpstart

      love it!!

    • jjgrandisland

      I think you are suggesting something like “No Blacks Served” signs. BTW…what is a gay wedding cake? Do you think they look like certain appendages? If so, you are more ignorant than I first thought.

  • NCOriolesFan

    Another smart-alec judge is wrong as usual. The Larsen’s can and they will decline immoral films. They don’t need any judicial ‘permission’ to say NO.

    • james blue

      I’m for revoking ig government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws in the public sector, however I do kind of agree with the judge’s argument about filming. If you or I film a nazi rally,it doesn’t mean we agree with what the people on the other side of the lens are saying. It’s kind of the difference between reporting and promoting.

      • NCOriolesFan

        I wouldn’t know since I won’t film Nazis whatever they do.

        • james blue

          Okay, but the news does and look at social media.

      • Beamer

        It doesn’t mean you agree with it, true. But that won’t stop others from labeling you as a Nazi sympathizer because of your name being in the credits.
        Once your reputation has been set, it’s very hard to change it to what it should be.
        I personally would not take a chance with the Nazi thing.
        I think everyone should serve everyone without exception.

        • james blue

          It was just an example, however many have made such films and not been labelled Nazi.

  • james blue

    A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. A self employed Christian photographer should be able to refuse to do gay weddings and a non Christian should be able to refuse goods, services, employment etc to Christians.

    On the other hand if a christian photographer is employed by a company that does cater gay weddings, he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. Employers should not be forced by law to make accommodations for our faith. It’s nice that employers do make accommodations, but they should be forced to by law.

    It is up to us to make the sacrifices in life in order to live by our faith, not have others make accommodations for us. If this means certain jobs are not suited to us, so be it.

    • vicnicholls

      We had an Orthodox Jew in one of the IT groups. Christians took his Fri-Sat sundown time, and he took the Sundays. Everybody completely happy with the situation. No problems.

      • james blue

        Good for them, but so what?

  • Garden of Love

    Great, another judge who wants to be a tyrant.

    • Michael C

      Do you believe that the laws prohibiting public accommodations from certain types of discrimination are “tyrannical?”

      • NCOriolesFan

        Absolutely. Let the owners decide for themselves who they want to serve.

        • Michael C

          So you believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all other non-discrimination laws should be repealed?

          Thank you for your honesty.

        • This style 10/6

          So you support refusing to serve African Americans if that takes your fancy.

          • Alias Darker

            it’s not about people , it’s about what they do . the act of gay marriage/ceremony is what they do not wish to film , they didn’t refuse to film gay people . so this comparison is weak . gay marriage is a controversial/political/divisive subject , lawful or not . so don’t pretend that people should just “accept it” . when these same judges go after anti christian bigotry and anti conservative bigotry , i’ll stop seeing them as the left wing tyrants that they are .

          • This style 10/6

            You said, let the owners decide for themselves. Now you say it is not about people. Make up your mind.

          • Mohammedans marry little girls, even 5 year oldes.
            Would you insist this couple in question be forced to film that?

          • This style 10/6

            Do they? Not in the US I believe.

            Why is it that you people always bring in fake facts about Muslims?

          • Not a fake fact in their countries.
            I mighten be off regarding the age. However, they do marry them very young. An olde saying applies there. “Olde enough to bleed, olde enough to breed.” 12 year for girls.

          • This style 10/6

            We are discussing what happens in the US.

          • Alias Darker

            you’re full of it . just because i refuse to bake a KKK cake doesn’t mean i hate all white people who like to be white… doesn’t mean i discriminate on white people . so i don’t see how refuseing to partake in a gay marriage ceremony is discrimination . if anything it’s freedom of association. they don’t refuse business to gay people , they’re against gay marriage . there are many laws in the USA that many people do not agree with and even protest against , i don’t see these people being threaten of losing their livelihoods …
            day after day people from the left prove that having them in a position of leadership is dangerous for us all . the bias, the power trips, the tone deafness, the intolerance and disrespect of other people’s views .
            People saw who you were to the point where they chose Trump instead . one would think they’d have some kind of a soul searching after this . of course not , they’e even worse today than the day hillary lost

          • jjgrandisland

            This is so simple. Then do not film heterosexual marriages. Please do notice these bad business owners have never been asked to film a gay wedding. They are on a mission. I think they believe this will help them get through the Pearly Gates. Boy…are they in for one big surprise.

          • Alias Darker

            i also believe they should quit and move somewherre else before the crazy people from the left start harrassing them with death threats

          • jjgrandisland

            Maybe they should move somewhere that does not have public accommodation laws. Maybe the backwoods of MS or AL?

          • Blake Paine

            Being Christian or conservative doesn’t give someone the right to not recognized other people’s rights. if they can’t film weddings as required by law then don’t do weddings. There is a very simple solution – there are virtually limitless things they can specialize in filming, why insist on this?

          • vicnicholls

            No one has a right to wedding cake or others’ work. Only the chosen employers have that. I am free to choose businesses for my needs. I don’t sue them because they refuse to, or companies that discriminated against me for non religious reasons, and I’ve seen some blatant discrimination in my time.

          • Blake Paine

            It’s ironic that you think being required to respect other’s civil rights is a violation of your rights.

          • vicnicholls

            Choice of where you want to take your business is not a civil right unless it is the public sector. Its been that way for years. Only a totalitarian govt. that wants to control its citizens believes in forcing businesses to not have a choice to serve. If its ok for healthcare, its ok for bakeries.

          • Blake Paine

            Straw man – this is about citizen’s civil rights being respected as required by law, not a ‘right to take your business’. The ‘right’ is being able to accept a freely made invitation to come buy made by a business without rights discrimination.

            All businesses are regulated in many ways, health codes, building codes, financial laws, consumer protection laws, and – yes – civil rights laws. And all of those civil rights laws have a way a business can operate AND discriminate by a civil rights class if they want to get off their lazy behinds and bother to do it.

            Not sure what you are talking about ‘healthcare’ – you do realize the ACA mandated that all employees get reproductive health care coverage and even in Hobby Lobby they did – just by the religious organization coverage rather than directly from their employer. They still got what they were due, and similarly every customer of a business making public invitations can expect to be treated without civil rights discrimination, i.e. they will still get their cake from this business one way or the other.

            Even the Hobby Lobby ruling made it clear that if there was no alternative way to get the health care coverage the business would have had to provide it as their ruling did not ”…nor does it provide a shield … who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.”

            The bakery owner has a couple choices:

            Offer the availability of customized wedding cakes to the public and deal with them while respecting their civil rights, or don’t offer wedding cakes to the public at all.

            If the owner still really really wants to sell wedding cakes they can spin off a new private membership corporation, enroll only those that they could sell to with a clear conscience and then make the invitation to buy wedding cakes to the membership only. Same way the Boy Scout of America avoiding being considered a public accommodation.

            What they can’t do is invite the public, i.e. everyone and then reject responding customers because of any civil rights class.

          • Steve Trent

            Well said!

          • Faithwalker

            Again for the millionth time, being African American is not a behavior.

          • This style 10/6

            So you just discriminate against a couple of guys or women who are married. Charming. What other behaviours don’t you like; Baptists could refuse to serve Catholics and vice versa.

            You don’t seem to get that discrimination is discrimination no matter how you dress it up.

          • Faithwalker

            I understand your point, but you cannot paint a broad brush when you are conducting comparisons. Behavior and physiology are two different constructs.

          • Michael C

            Again for the millionth time, being African American is not a behavior.

            Do you believe that civil rights laws should not protect any class that could be considered a “behavior?”

          • Faithwalker

            The question with that argument is…who will be designated the authoritarian to designate which behaviors are entitled to special protections?

          • Michael C

            who will be designated the authoritarian to specify which behaviors are entitled to special protections?

            ummmmm… laws are passed by our elected representatives in the legislative branch of the government.

            You made the claim that discrimination on the basis of race is different than discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation because race is not a “behavior” and you believe that sexual orientation is.

            That brings us back to my question which you’ve attempted to evade.

            Do you believe that “behaviors” should not be protected from discrimination by civil rights laws?

          • Faithwalker

            No, I don’t believe that sexual behaviors should be classified as a protected class.

          • Michael C

            No, I don’t believe that sexual behaviors should be classified as a protected class.

            That still wasn’t my question. It appears you’re not interested in dialogue. Have a nice day.

        • jjgrandisland

          You mean just like Woolworth’s did when the Gang of Four took a seat? If this is permitted what is next? Oh the poor tomato farmer does not want to sell his art to the gays?

          • Absolutely.
            Same principle!
            No more should a central government FORCE you and your family to attend the church of THEIR choosing than should this couple be FORCED to attend violating their deepest held beliefs.
            The mainest difference between this government ruling and the mohammedan countries is the form of punishment in violating the court’s/Imam’s ruling.

          • jjgrandisland

            Our government does not force anyone to go to any church. We get to pick our poison. As for forcing this bad business person to behave….both the local governments and courts are confirming there is a not a right to open up a business in the public square and break the rules.

      • mr goody two shoes

        Yes.

        • Blake Paine

          Then repeal them. They didn’t just appear out of thin air – civil rights were recognized by constitutional and legal means and when people don’t like them often confirmed by a majority popular vote.

    • jjgrandisland

      No…the judge is actually reading the law. Sigh

      • Kaz

        Why are you sighing? Is your immune system having problems?

  • InTheChurch

    Easy solution; place 4 cameras in each corner, go to lunch, return to stop recording and hand the couple the 4 SD cards. You complied with recording the wedding. Done deal. Get your money and off you go.

  • The General

    Wait a few more years, you’ll be dragged into court for “discriminating” against a 50-year-old marrying a 12-year-old. This is where “love is never wrong” leads.

    • mr goody two shoes

      That’s legal right now in 46 states with parents permission. A 12 year old girl can wed a 50 or 70 year old man.

      • jjgrandisland

        Yeah…but this only happens in those good old red states. The ones where they are missing lots of teeth and living in a broken down double wide

    • Garbage Adams

      No, because NOBODY is going to declare pedophilia as legitimate. For one thing, no one wants that. Apart from a few twits that no one takes seriously.

      • jumpstart

        NAMBLA wants to have the courts lower the age of consent so they can have sex with younger boys. Read a while back that a judge in Australia wants to reconsider incest laws. The world is rushing to the altar of Satan.

        • Garbage Adams

          NAMBLA is taken seriously by…who? And from what I have read many people don’t think it even functions at all anymore.

        • jjgrandisland

          Why do you guys always go here? My community strongly condemns any one who was or is currently associated with this clandestine group. It is like me equating you to Jim Jones and his cult.

        • Blake Paine

          Actually NAMBLA started out being they wanted the age of consent in Canada to be the same for gays and straights, then ephebophiles joined the group and took it over. Even at its peak the group had fewer than 2500 members world wide. There are more snake handling pentecostals than that.

      • Steve Trent

        Don’t count on it. Generations ago they would have said the same thing about same sex marriages and sex change medicine. Now same sex marriage is legal and sex change medicine is being payed for by everyone. The envelope is continually being pushed by those who are in rebellion against the Creator. Freedom with no boundaries turns into bondage – bondage to sin.

        • Garbage Adams

          Same sex marriage is not abuse of a minor. I stand by my statement. No one will ever OK child abuse. How can you think such a thing?

          • Steve Trent

            Ever heard of pederasty? It was considered acceptable in the ancient Greco Roman world using men as young as 16. History repeats itself.

          • Garbage Adams

            All right, then tell me what group would dare publicly be in favor of it. Go ahead. You know as well as I do they would be skewered alive by practically everyone in the world. Incidentally, 16 IS the age of consent in many places.

    • jjgrandisland

      And should this happen I will be standing right next to you on the court steps. A twelve year old cannot consent and cannot enter into a binding contract.

      • Blake Paine

        And yet that used to be the age of consent for a young girl and it is progressives that raised the age of consent, not conservatives. Worry more about Christians making a call to restore ‘biblical values’ to marriage and call for a return to an age of consent of the age to 12 for girls and 13 for boys.

        • jjgrandisland

          Blake…it is sad but very true. I am so tired of these clowns who think we should be living our lives like people did 2,000 years ago. But they are the first ones to have a cell phone and live on their computers evangelizing their faith. They only want to ignore 2,000 years of evolution when it fits their needs. How completely pathetic.

    • Steve Trent

      You are correct. When you throw out God-given constructs of what is right and what is wrong, right and wrong then becomes whatever a culture decides is right or wrong at any given point in time. And it will change over time because there are no absolutes.

  • MasterSiptah

    What ever happened to the rule that says “I retain the right to refuse service”?

    • Garbage Adams

      You can still do that. In your church. Just not in public.

    • Michael C

      The Civil Rights Act of 1964

  • jjgrandisland

    “Presumptive Action” = Radical Evangelical Religious Protest

  • Musky

    You can read a lot into a human face. These are good people. It takes someone truly malicious – and I’m including this disgusting judge – to go after good people.