Trump Administration Backs Baker Who Declined to Make Cake for Same-Sex Celebration

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Colorado baker who was ordered to make a cake for an event celebrating the union of two homosexual men.

“The department filed an amicus brief in this case today because the First Amendment protects the right of free expression for all Americans,” spokesperson Lauren Ehrsam outlined in a statement on Thursday.

“Although public-accommodations laws serve important purposes, they—like other laws—must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees,” she said. “That includes the freedom not to create expression for ceremonies that violate one’s religious beliefs.”

The government argued in the brief that creating a custom cake is indeed a form of artistic expression, and is also a mode of participation in the event.

“A custom wedding cake is a form of expression, whether pure speech or the product of expressive conduct. It is an artistic creation that is both subjectively intended and objectively perceived as a celebratory symbol of a marriage,” wrote Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall.

“Like wedding rings, … a wedding cake is used in a ritual that signifies and celebrates the beginning of a marriage—namely, the ceremony in which the newlyweds cut the cake together and sometimes feed it to each other,” he noted. “This cake-cutting ceremony has ‘become one of the clearest and most essential rites of marrying’ in modern times, and ‘also one of the most potentially meaningful.’”

The Department argued, therefore, that forcing Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, a Christian, to make a cake for a same-sex celebration causes him to join in the event as a participant, in violation of his religious convictions that homosexuality is a transgression of the law of God.

  • Connect with Christian News

“By producing a custom wedding cake for that ritual, Phillips participates in the wedding celebration in a meaningful way. Even though he may not always remain physically present at the wedding, he crafts and delivers his creative expression to the event,” Wall wrote.

“In that sense, Colorado’s public accommodations law compels Phillips not just to create expression, but also to participate in a wedding celebration that conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs,” the government stated.

Read the 41-page brief in full here.

As previously reported, the case began in 2012 when Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado to look for options for their upcoming same-sex ceremony celebration. As Colorado—at the time—had a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the men planned to travel to Massachusetts and then return to Colorado for a separate celebration.

However, after their arrival at the cake shop, Mullin and Craig were advised by owner Jack Phillips that he does not make cakes for same-sex ceremonies.

“My first comment was, ‘We’re getting married,’ and he just shut that down immediately,” Craig stated.

Phillips told Christian News Network that he does not make cakes for such events because of his Christian convictions.

“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, and I believe that the relationship is not something that He looks favorably on,” the master pastry chef stated. “If Jesus was a carpenter, He wouldn’t make a bed for this union.”

However, Phillips says that it is not just same-sex celebrations that he declines. He also doesn’t create custom baked goods for bachelor parties or Halloween events, and remarked in a recent video that sometimes in a day he will turn down more requests than he accepts.

Phillips, who attends a Baptist church, said that when he informed Mullin and Craig that his bakery does not make cakes for same-sex “weddings,” the men immediately left. He stated that one of them made a comment on his way out the door that the bakery was a “homophobic cake shop.”

Phillips said that he told the men that he would be happy to make them any other type of baked goods outside of having to facilitate the ceremony, which he believed was a form of personal participation. But Mullin and Craig complained to the Colorado Human Rights Commission with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and have prevailed in their case ever since.

In December 2013, Judge Robert Spencer sided with the ACLU, contending that Phillips should have made the cake because he was not told that there would be any words or symbols written on it.

“Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage,” he wrote. “The act of preparing a cake is simply not ‘speech’ warranting First Amendment protection.”

In May 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Spencer’s ruling, stating that Phillips violated the state’s civil rights law. The Commission then ordered that Phillips educate his staff in alignment with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, to implement new policies in light of the ruling, and to file quarterly compliance reports for two years. The reports were to outline each pastry creation request that was declined and the reason why to prove that Phillips’ religious beliefs no longer influence his business decisions.

Phillips filed an appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court’s rulings in August 2015, asserting that providing the cake for the ceremony does not equal an endorsement of same-sex nuptials.

“Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece’s providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodations law,” the court ruled.

The matter was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case last year. Therefore, Phillips took his case to the nation’s highest court, which agreed in June to be the arbiter of the issue.

In addition to the U.S. Department of Justice, 20 states and over 80 members of Congress have joined in amicus briefs supporting Phillips’ religious rights. Over 500 creative professionals have also filed a joint brief stating that those who engage in artistic expression should be free from compelled speech.

“Artistic speech, whether expressed through painting a picture, taking a photograph, or designing a cake, is constitutionally protected and should be treated as such,” they explained. “The expression should neither be silenced nor coerced. Though the concern is currently most pressing in the same-sex wedding context, it is not so limited. Creative professionals of all stripes stand to suffer from undue compulsion, depending on how this court rules here.”


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
  • Mike Knife

    You are not a Christian a Christian helps everybody the way Jesus did. You are just another fake who bakes cakes.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      a christian does not help others to sin against God and Christ ……….. so WRONG …………….

      • Mike Knife

        YOU ARE FAKES! That is why God is punishing you with Irma.

        • meamsane

          And the standard at which you arrived at this conclusion is?

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          Irma is punishment … i agree …….

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          FYI …. He is punishing all the pagans at the sametime ………

        • brucewang

          I thought God was punishing them with Pat Robertson.

      • Larry

        Yes, a good Christian points out the sins of others! Just read Matthew 7:1-5….oops, I meant………

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          try reading Matthew 12:34-39 …. and Matthew 23:19:39 ……… and then get back to me ……….. OOOOOPPPSSSS … guess you missed those TWO …. as well as …..

          Matthew 18:15

          John 7:24

          2 Timothy 3:16

          1 Corinthians 5 & 6

          1 Corinthians 2:15

          Proverbs 27:5, Proverbs 31:9

          SCRIPTURE NAMES NAMES and it makes no pretense of giving cover to anyones SINS ……..

    • meamsane

      Can a Christian be a baker, continue living in bakery and still be a Christian?

      • Mike Knife

        Fake Christians are the anti-gay Christians who hate and kill LGBTQ people.

        • Wrongway

          Mike Knife be careful with your social keyboard warrior stereotyping, micro-aggression, shame labeling.

          • Mike Knife

            Be careful with being judgement, least ye be judged, you will have a judgement day.

          • meamsane

            So you judge and then warn others not to judge? Hypocrisy.

          • Wrongway

            Is it your judgement am I being judgmental?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yeah … no scripture for that ……….

          • Beamer

            There is a reason why no one but God can be the Judge. He can see our hearts and we can only see the outside. It says in scripture that we are not to judge persons but only about their sin.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Matthew 7 Read the WHOLE chapter

            Matthew 18:15-17

            John 7:24

            2 Timothy 3:16-17

            1 Corinthians 5 & 6

            1 Corinthians 2:15-16

            Proverbs 27:5-6, Proverbs 31:9

          • Beamer

            I admit I quit reading after 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
            I had just studied Matthew and Mark recently, so I had to read them to find out why you think it is okay to judge.

            Everything in those scriptures I read, say that we are to judge our brethren about their sins, and that is because they know better than to sin and need reminded that they needed to look over their lives for the sins they are committing; there is a scripture about reviewing your sins, but I’d have to look for it.

            In Matthew 7 I found verse 16 Know them by their fruits
            Which are identified as the Fruit of Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23
            Matt. 7:16
            Ye shall know them BY THEIR FRUITS. Do men gather grapes of
            thorns, or figs of thistles?
            Galatians 5:22-23
            22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
            23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

            I see nothing that can be said to order us to be judges of anyone other than our brothers and sisters, and only because they already know better.

            I’ve been thinking about it and when I was taught my manners as a child, I was taught that if you could not say anything nice, do not say anything at all. Considering most manners came from the Christian beliefs, I’d agree that it is a rude thing to do to a stranger, to walk up to them and spout the bible at them.

            It would be much better to walk up and ask if you could speak to them. They should have the choice to say no and walk away, just as we do for the Satanists we do not want to listen to.

            One person is not more worthy in God’s eyes. That is why all sin is equal.

            No scriptures will tell you that you can give a final judgement about whether a person is worthy of heaven or of hell.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “No scriptures will tell you that you can give a final judgement about whether a person is worthy of heaven or of hell.”

            and i have not … if so then show it ……….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “‘been thinking about it and when I was taught my manners as a child, I was taught that if you could not say anything nice, do not say anything at all.”

            try reading Matthew 12:34-39 …. and Matthew 23:19:39 …. then get back to me ……….

          • Beamer

            What about the scriptures you gave to me? Jesus was teaching us about hypocrisy it’s nothing about how WE should behave towards others. It is saying NOT to be hypocrites
            The things that Jesus taught in the bible are for the followers of the Gospel, not for those who do not.
            There is no scripture that states we are to be rude to anyone at all. Pointing out a sin does not have to be done rudely. We are supposed to treat everyone with love.
            Judgement is to be left to God. We have no authority to do anything more than tell someone of their sin. and we are not supposed to act hatefully when we do it.
            If you want to go around judging PEOPLE, you go ahead and go against Jesus’ teaching. I will keep my salvation by following what Jesus told us how to behave towards others. You need to understand that our behaviour makes a difference to Jesus. The scriptures tell us that Jesus won’t know some people who expect to have salvation because they did not treat people the way Jesus expects us to during their lives. “Lord, Lord!” There are many examples and Jesus spoke of our expected behaviour many times because he wants Christians to stand out as Good People, to give God the Glory. If you don’t stand out as a good person, you are not following Jesus’ Word.

            Judging sin in brethren is totally different than judging a non-believer. Our brethren know that it is wrong to commit sin, that is why we can rebuke their sins. We cannot expect a non-believer to accept the same rebuke when they are non believers. Some won’t even know what you are talking about. Some don’t believe in the first place. How do you expect to convert others when you are being so judgmental?

            No, Jesus did not tell us to be judgemental of the person, just of the sin.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Christ was chastising the pharisees ………. and His language did not reflect your comment ……. he called asps, a generation of viper, said their were of the devil and their father was satan …. and on and on ….. silence is assent ….. so while your mother taught you well in your manners ….. that has nothing to do with bringing people to confront their sins and to salvation …………..

          • Beamer

            Anytime he spoke to the pharisees and the scribes he was doing it to fulfill a prophecy.
            You are wrong. Jesus did not do that with the adulteress because it was not about a prophecy. All he did was tell the elders NOT TO JUDGE and the adulteress not to sin anymore. He didn’t even do that to the multiple disciples who departed from him when Jesus spoke of drinking his blood and eating his flesh.

            If your mother taught you to be rude for any reason, she was not a mother I would want around my children.
            There is never a need to be rude to anyone for anything. Learn to use your words for gosh sake.
            There is better words than the way you are talking. Only the illiterate cannot speak without derision and demeaning someone. Only someone who wants to show that they are “better” than they are.
            You sound like a new convert because you don’t know the scriptures very well.
            You don’t say a word about the Love for each other that we are supposed to have for Everyone .
            Oh right, it’s you. .. Ok well, good-bye. You don’t know your bible well enough to bother talking to. Try reading the bible before you try to make a claim of something in the gospel. You might find out you don’t know what Jesus has taught us at all.
            Jesus came to minister (teach) and to lay down his life for a ransom of many. You have to read the bible to find out what he taught, and just to give you spoilers, it is not all about other people’s sin. There is actually more about how Jesus wants us to behave than there is about sin. And most sin discussed is about the sin of our brethren, not of non-believers. Non believers are expected to be sinners.
            The bible is a guide for believers not non believers. Those sins are for US to avoid doing, not the non believers.
            Read your bible and you might see what you missed the first time.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Anytime he spoke to the pharisees and the scribes he was doing it to fulfill a prophecy. ”

            So what …………..

            “Jesus did not do that with the adulteress because it was not about a prophecy. ”

            yes it was …. different situation …. different approach ………. again … so what …………

            “All he did was tell the elders NOT TO JUDGE”

            no He did not ……. nothing in scripture or about scripture that says to never judge …..

          • Beamer

            He told them that they should not judge because they are sinners too. By telling them that the one without sin should cast the first stone, and everyone left because they could not say that they had not sinned. Of course it was to show us not to judge. What did you think it was teaching us?
            You just can’t grasp the concept that we are not supposed to judge the PERSON, but only the sin. You can’t judge the people because you are a sinner too, whether you repent or not you are still considered a sinner.
            You have the strangest belief. it doesn’t sound like it is from the KJV bible at all. Are you in another religion? Is that why you don’t understand what Jesus was teaching us?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ……….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Christ CONFRONTING the woman at the well about her sin ………..

            John
            4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
            4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
            4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
            4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
            4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
            4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

          • Beamer

            Yes he confronted her, but did he punish her? no. What he did was tell her about salvation (in the long run) and preceded it with the last verse. He was showing her his ability to know about her to show her the power he has. He did it often so people would know he is God. all the miracles were for the people’s sake so they would believe. The scriptures say that.
            Prophecies were handled by Jesus totally differently than when they were not prophesied. He fulfilled them the way the prophecy said he would. He even told us that about the prophecies he fulfilled and why he .
            You really need to read the bible again. It takes all of us time to really “know” the bible and you just need to keep reading it over and over to learn God’s Word. The NT is what we are supposed to follow so it’s best if you learn it first. Hope that helps.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Oh …. BTW …. hello MamaBarely and Sharon at home ……..

          • Beamer

            who? I think you replied to the wrong post. You’ll have to say hi to them on their post, not mine.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………

        • meamsane

          And everyone knows that these accusations are bogus on there face!

          • Beamer

            Here’s a Christian that knows they are not bogus!! I’ve had an old friend beaten up because of his gayness. It still happens.
            It usually helps before denying accusations to make sure they are not true by looking them up yourself. Otherwise….

      • Blake Paine

        Sure. If he sincerely feels he can only sell wedding cakes to those who share his creed there is a simple solution, reorganize as a private membership business that only lets those of his creed to join and make the membership the invitation of sale. That’s how the Boy Scouts and Hurley won at SCOTUS.

        What they can’t do is invite all creeds, ie the public, and then tell some of the responding public that their beliefs about marriage aren’t accepted or respected and refuse them the sale because of it.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          or he can just refuse to make cakes for the purposes he disagrees with ….. just like a black business owner can refuse to serve the KKK if it is against their beliefs and principles …………

          • Blake Paine

            So, just because someone was in the KKK he wouldn’t sell them a wedding cake? How Christian… NOT!

            Wouldn’t an actual Christian look at this as an opportunity of outreach? The whole ‘two cheek’ striking thing or walking 2 miles instead of 1?

            Can’t serve people regardless of faith why invite people of all faiths, ie the public?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            there have been cases where a black business owner was asked to make t-shirts with messages offensive to his principles by a racist organization ……… he refused … i do not blame him …

            “Wouldn’t an actual Christian look at this as an opportunity of outreach?”

            encouraging SIN is not “outreach” ……….

          • Blake Paine

            There was no message here, customers were refused before their cake selection was ever described.

            Again can’t sell to all legally then don’t sell to anyone is the Christian solution, and the American one as per the SCOTUS.

            Do they sell wedding cakes to the public? Yes or No is the answer for all.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the meesage is there and it required the bakers participation to a level he was not comfortable with being involved …..

            “before their cake selection was ever described.” …. their statement that they were getting married was enough ………. SCOTUS has no legislative power ………..

          • Larry

            And pointing out the SIN of others is not “outreach” either. Matthew 7:1-5. Guess you missed that one!

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sorry … out of context …. Matthew 7 is ALL ABOUT judgement of sin ….. and Christ pointed out SIN all the time …. and He was not “coy” about doing it …. try reading Matthew 12:34-39 …. and Matthew 23:19:39 ……… and then get back to me ………..

        • meamsane

          Marriage=Man and Woman. This is what this Baker was doing for years without a problem, until SCOTUS drops “homo-marriage” on the nation and this baker is supposed to forget the free exercise Clause and his own beliefs, revamp his own business because you say he should, and be forced to conform to some personal preferences of 5 lawyers on the high court?
          The government is supposed to protect the rights of the people, but they are not doing it by choice.
          This baker is doing the right thing!!!

          • Mike Knife

            I thought God protected the people and in the end he will judge not you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you thought wrong …………

          • Mike Knife

            You are dead wrong.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … still alive ……… got a scripture …………

          • meamsane

            Please, if you don’t know anything about what the Scriptures say about God, and don’t follow them, don’t pretend that you do because you just end up sounding like a fool.

          • Blake Paine

            Since this incident happened before Obergefell it just shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

            I attended my first same séx wedding in the late 1970’s and I’m sure they were happening before. Anyone can religiously marry, and the have been for many decades.

            This is about respecting the right of other citizens to NOT share the same beliefs of the business owner and still buy what they sell. This is the point of civil rights laws that have existed since the 1890’s until today. This case happened before the Obergefell decision.

            If he can’t sell to people respecting their recognized civil rights he her lots of choices:

            First, stop pretending to offer wedding cakes to the public legally, because he isn’t,

            Then decide to:
            1) move to another state where he can’t maliciously discriminate as he desires and set up his business,

            2) re-structure his current business to be a private business and only accept membership by people who he thinks have the ‘right’ beliefs and make the offer of sale just to them.

            Those are his choices.

            He offers wedding cakes for sales to the public, sell them legally or don’t sell them to the public in Colorado.

          • meamsane

            So what? None of this addresses my point! This isn’t about discrimination at all, but about those who are hostile to religion (especially Christian) and are attacking it using discrimination as a pretext.
            And just as the SC attacked the First Amendment with their “Gay marriage” ruling.
            So what this comes down to is whether or not the SC is going to continue to attack the Constitution that they are supposed to defend (Gay marriage is not in the US Constitution nor any “law” that I know of), or they are going to consider their “opinions” as above it ( Free Religious Exercise is enshrined in the US Constitution), so don’t pretend to be a defender of the Constitution or rule of law here, you simply want your own way and want other’s rights to be over-ruled so you can have a special right.

          • Blake Paine

            So doubling down on ignorance.

            This is about hostile religionists, not the other way around. There is no right to treat customers as if they share the business owner’s religion. If they couldn’t sell things to the public as required by law they shouldn’t offered it to the public in the first place.

            And marriage is civil contract and most definitely under Constitutiknal control. In Obergefell the court was addressing one question – is the state licensed civil contract by virtue of its federal recognition valid throughout all federal lands because of the 14th amendment. They decided ‘yes’ that’s it.

            The free exercise clause means that if your beliefs say you can’t sell wedding cakes legally then you don’t have to sell wedding cakes. That’s it. In 1966 a business owner owning Piggie Park Enterprises said his sincerely held religious beliefs wouldn’t allow him to respect civil rights laws either, the court ruled:

            “Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger 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.”

            Similarly in United States v Lee a business owner was told their beliefs didn’t allow them to treat others as if they shared his beliefs.

            And finally even in Hobby Lobby the SCOTUS said that the ruling did not allow illegal discrimination cloak as religious practice.

            What there is is no constitutional right to sell wedding cakes. If beliefs won’t allow it then sell birthday cakes instead.

          • meamsane

            Strawman. This isn’t about selling things to the public. You conflate two separate issues. It is about a degree of participation in a single event, a “Homo-Marriage” that the christian does not want to be a part of.

            And who is it that is bringing lawsuits against whom? Against people of religion. As usual, the depraved have it backwards! Why don’t you try thinking on your own a………….forget it!

          • Blake Paine

            You don’t know what strawmsn argument is it seems. The obligation of the business under civil rights laws is to give “full enjoyment of any‘ services it offers without discrimination. Does the business offer wedding cakes to the public? Yes. So they must be sold without to customers even if their beliefs allow marriage when the business iwner’s wouldn’t.

            And when the victim of a crime complains it’s their fault and not the criminals that broke the law? Why don’t you try thinking. Period.

  • Blake Paine

    They are going to try and say that the bakery is operating like the press, and that they should have total control on the ‘speech’ the business produces. This will fail since ‘commercial speech’, i.e. voluntarily offering the public ‘speech’ for cash isn’t treated the same. While the message content can be controlled, the customer can’t be rejected because of civil rights.

    And unfortunately for this business they had on their website back in 2012 an invitation to the public to look at their web gallery of cakes and ’Click the cake image and if you see something you like, just tell Jack.’

    Yep, the business was offering ‘canned speech’ if you want to consider a cake design ‘speech’ and if a business offers a specific ’speech’ to the public then every member of that public can buy that specific ‘text’ without civil rights discrimination.

    I understand the issue but this obvious deceit of trying to pretend that each cake is a ‘work of art’ is just that. Anyone who’s ordered a cake knows the bakery has a ‘cake book’ with examples and the customers pick the one they like. They might ask for modifications but then again they might not and these customers were never even given the chance to decide being rejected before that even occurred.

    Reminds me of that wedding venue in New York state that swore they only let friends use the barn for weddings – and their website at the time they claimed that might give you that impression but actually the website at the time the customers were rejected was offering that venue to everyone far and wide.

    Nothing goes away on the internet – being deceptive like this just shows the true colors of the people wanting to discriminate.

  • Michael C

    If a bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to an interfaith couple because the business owner opposed relationships between people of different religions, this would be considered discrimination on the basis of religion. It is illegal for public accommodations to refuse service to customers on the basis of their religion everywhere in the United States.

    If a bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because the business owner opposed relationships between people of different races, this would be considered discrimination on the basis of race. It is illegal for public accommodations to refuse service to customers on the basis of their race everywhere in the United States.

    If a bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because the business owner opposed relationships between people of different sexes, this would be considered discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is illegal for public accommodations to refuse service to customers on the basis of their sexual in a minority of places in the United States.

    It’s actually totally legal for businesses to refuse service to gay people just because they’re gay in the majority of the US. Colorado, where this bakery is located, is one of the states that prohibits such discrimination, however.

    The law that prevents this bakery from refusing to sell their regularly offered products to gay customers is the same law that prevents businesses from firing employees just because they’re gay. It’s also the same law that prevents businesses from denying people a place to live just because they’re gay.

    If this bakery prevails before the Supreme Court, it will have serious effect on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It will open the door for discrimination on the basis of race and religion that have been believed to be protected for the past half-century.

    • Wrongway

      It’s not because the couple was homosexual they were refused service. It was because a Christian man refused to participate in a Satanic ritual mocking God.

      • Michael C

        It’s not because the couple was homosexual they were refused service. It was because a Christian man refused to participate in a Satanic ritual mocking God.

        Do you believe that a bakery could refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple if they said “It’s not because of your race, It’s because I refuse to participate in your Satanic, God-mocking ritual”?

        Do you honestly think that’s somehow okay?

        • Blake Paine

          And no one asked him to participate and considering how many cakes the business was making at the time the likelihood Jack went to every one is very very low. Someone else would be delivering the cake to the wedding site so that cuts that argument off right at the knees.

          • Michael C

            …and cake delivery (if that service is offered) isn’t “participation.”

            The pizza delivery guy isn’t being invited to participate in my poker night, either.

          • Blake Paine

            Correct, vendors are not participating in the event by any useful meaning of the term. If that was an excuse then anyone could refuse a member of the public for any reason.

          • Larry

            Good point!!!!!

          • Beamer

            I would say that depends on what they want put on the cake. If it references the genders even by name, it would be a statement that the baker is abetting or supporting the sin of marriage by creating the cake. I would hope this kind of law suit is over just because there are many places that advertise that they are ok with gays. I pray to Jesus that they are over.

            I guess we believe that our faith, our beliefs, are a part of our Identities just as you feel being gay is who you are. And keeping our beliefs are as big a part of us as your equal rights are for you.
            Both of us want to stand up for who we are as people, and they clash, even though the two sides are fighting for the same rights.
            How do both sides get to be ‘who they are’ and get along? Why should either side have to give up who they are?

            There are multiple feelings on the subject by the different ‘hundreds’ around the globe. What I don’t understand is the people who do not understand the last commandment that Jesus gave us said to love each other and another was to treat each other the way we want to be treated. They are obviously not following those commands.

          • Michael C

            I would say that depends on what they want put on the cake.

            I agree.

            There is a bakery in Ireland who are currently dealing with legal issues related to their refusal to decorate a custom cake with the phrase “Support Gay Marriage.” I’m on their side. I don’t think they should be required by law to do so. A bakery is not required to sell a product to gay customers that they wouldn’t readily sell to straight customers.

            However, if a bakery indiscriminately puts the names of heterosexual people on cakes, they should do the same for any other customer. They shouldn’t be expected to do anything extra for gay people. Nobody’s asking for anything more than equal treatment. If a business wants to personally vet a customer to make sure they meet certain religious criteria in order to purchase their products or services, this business shouldn’t be operating as a public accommodation. They should restructure their business accordingly.

            How do both sides get to be ‘who they are’ and get along? Why should either side have to give up who they are?

            No gay couples would willingly support a business owned by people who hate them.

            If a “Christian” business owner wishes to be left alone by gay people (and the people who love them), all they need to do is advertise their anti-gay beliefs. As long as the business is obeying all local laws, gay people (and the people who love them) will steer clear of the business.

          • Beamer

            Michael, it isn’t about hate of gays, honestly. It’s about following our beliefs in our God. We are not supposed to hate anyone. We are supposed to be loving and caring as Christians. The thing is, if we follow God’s Word, we cannot ‘abet’ in anyone’s sin. It isn’t just what the gays do that we can’t help them with their sin. We can’t do anything that helps another person sin. It’s an extreme example, but we cannot be the getaway driver that waits for the bank robbers. We can’t rent a motel room for others to use for fornication (unmarried sex) knowing that is what it will be used for. We can’t buy the gun for someone who will murder someone. These are extremes but I am trying to show why Christians do not want to be involved with marriage that is against what God defined as a marriage.
            Jesus would not agree with discrimination of any persons. He wanted us to love each other and care about each other. He told us that he loves all people, sinner and believers alike, because while they are alive they are still able to convert to a believer. That is a reason why we must treat everyone properly, the other is because if we love each other the way Jesus told us to, we would not want to treat anyone with discrimination.
            Christians who are rude when they hold fast to their beliefs are not behaving in a good manner. Telling someone that they are sorry they can’t help them, is still considered discrimination and as far as Marriage is concerned, that is the only thing Christians should be concerned about abetting. There is nothing else that a Christian should refuse to a non-Christian.
            I love everyone as I believe that Jesus wants us to. It’s not like it’s a hard thing to do, either. It’s hard for me to understand the Christians that do act with hate towards gays or anyone else. I can’t imagine being like that. In my view, Christians are supposed to act properly at all times. Rudeness is not acting properly.

          • Michael C

            For me, a Christian who acts rude and hateful toward gay people and a Christian who opens a public accommodation only to “politely” refuse service to gay people are one and the same. I’m actually more bothered by someone who believes it’s okay to refuse service to gay people as long as they do it nicely.

            If there is a product or service that a business owner would be unwilling to sell to the general public at large, they shouldn’t offer it to the general public. If a business owner wishes to only serve customers with whom they share religious beliefs, there are other business models they should be following. Theirs shouldn’t be a public accommodation.

            You seem to believe that wedding cakes are some sort of exception. Tell me, do you think that a bakery owner who believes it would be a sin to “abet” an interracial couple in their wedding should be allowed to refuse to sell them a cake?

          • Beamer

            Actually I think all things they refuse to accommodate about the gay marriage is not necessary, Michael. The only thing is the marriage itself and the problem with the sex thing – which I feel is no one’s business in the first place. If they don’t tell everyone about their own bedroom activities, why do they think they have the right to look in yours?

            And I don’t believe they are treating gays well when they tell them they are sinners either. Every time I hear that a Christian has been rude to anyone, it frustrates me. No Christian should ever be rude to another person and especially not about another person’s sin, unless they are followers too. You can’t be rude and loving at the same time.

            Michael I honestly believe that Jesus would not want Christians to be rude to others – anyone. Other Christians can’t see that he wants us to behave properly and not fight with others – and obviously that means not being rude too.

            I’m glad (and hopeful) that each day will bring the world closer to respecting each others Identities. As long as the gays are willing to avoid the Christian establishments there should not be a problem anymore, should there?

          • Bob Johnson

            And what about Marriott Hotel, a good Mormon company, should they allowed to not rent a room to the couple on their honeymoon?

          • Beamer

            Like I said, most things are not abetting the sin. Renting a room can be for the purpose of sleep and not sex, for one thing. (and it’s no one’s business but their own)
            No I don’t agree with denying things because of a person’s sin. Jesus did not tell us to make sinners suffer or in any way punished for their sins. We are all sinners so he would have to tell us to punish others too. But he did not. He pointed out what sin is, and told his followers about how to behave so they won’t sin, with repentance when we do recognize our sins.
            If the motel refused a room, based on who the people were, they would likely be sued. So I think I’d feel sorrier for the Hotel for not abiding by the laws, especially since Jesus never told us to be like that towards others.

          • Michael C

            Actually I think all things they refuse to accommodate about the gay marriage is not necessary, Michael.

            I’m a little unclear on the wording of this statement. I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.

            Are you saying that you believe that all businesses should be permitted an exemption from civil rights laws if the basis of their refusal of service is directly related to the marital relationship of the customer?

          • Beamer

            No I don’t think anyone should be refused service for any reason.

          • Beamer

            These Christians believe that doing anything to “abet” the sin of marriage between two people of the same sex in any way. No flowers because, you know they won’t have sex if they don’t have flowers at their wedding. Oh and with florists they really do have to attend the ceremony and the reception afterwards. Bakers on the other hand feel that they will be helping them to have lust for each other by feeding them cake.
            Jesus told us to love everyone. He told us to love our “enemies” which these Christians seem to think of sinners as. He told us to treat everyone the way we want to be treated. Does that sound like Jesus would be concerned about whether it was for a gay marriage or not?
            The only way I believe that I could abet that sin is to be right there and coaching them… or handing them things they want…play sexy music maybe?
            I don’t believe Jesus would want us to treat anyone the way the Christians have been treating gays. He would not want any person to be treated less that another person. He wants us all to love each other. There is no exceptions to these commandments. Love each other. Everyone.
            Not love everyone except sinners, because we are all sinners.
            Not love everyone except the homosexuals or anyone else. Everyone is to be treated fairly even in Law.
            Jesus told us that the sin of homosexuality was comprehended by the second commandment to love each other.
            It’s a sin just like anyone who swears at the driver that cuts them off on the way to work.

            God respects no person and will not treat one sinner any differently than another sinner. All sins will be punished in the same way.

            So I have no clue why these people seem to think it’s okay to behave badly towards the gays because of their sin… without making sure they know the Hope of Salvation… they are not spreading the gospel, they are spreading hate.

            As I have loved you, love each other.

        • Wrongway

          If you’re going to be a Christian then the Bible is the source of beliefs. Race and gender are sacred – this is how God creates us – in His image. When the 21st Century man decides to call good evil and evil good and goes against all of history and culture to embrace same sex marriage, 21st Century man isn’t thinking rightly about God. There is nothing in the Bible against interracial marriage. Moses married a black woman. There is however strict prohibitions against homosexuality and marriage is between man and woman according to the same Bible. It doesn’t matter what you or I think is somehow OK, it matters what God thinks.

          • Michael C

            Are you trying to tell me that there’s nobody in the United States who believes that interfaith or interracial marriage is wrong on the basis of their religious beliefs?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nothing in scripture expressly forbids it … although interfaith is maybe less desirable …. but not forbidden ……..

          • Michael C

            Your personal religious beliefs are not the only religious beliefs in the United States.

            Your personal religious beliefs are not the only religious beliefs protected by the First Amendment.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            So what …. they are protected ……….

          • Blake Paine

            But according to US law and constitution it doesn’t matter act your interpretation of scripture is, only the person who beliefs.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are going to have to fix that for me to understand what you are saying ………..

          • Larry

            Eating pork and shellfish is an “abomination to God” in the Bible. Have any ribs or lobster lately?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure … have you read any scripture lately …. it appears not …. my this is getting boring …. why is it A-theists never have any new material ….. just the same golden moldies …..

          • Blake Paine

            The owner of Piggie Park Enterprises sincerely believed that the races shouldn’t mix. The court told him:

            Undoubtedly defendant Besieger Can’t respehas 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.

            Can’t respect the civiil rights of the customer, don’t offer custom wedding cakes for sale to the public in the first place.

            Game. Set. Match.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it was not a wedding or a marriage … it was a mirage ………

          • Larry

            Not too long ago marrying a “negro” was a sin in the Good Old South. And now you’re standing with the Good Old Boys.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            really …. there has never been any prohibition of “race mixing” in scripture ….. who are you standing with ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Critical Theory and the Unity of the Church
            The undersigned concerned individuals are constrained, indeed compelled, to speak to ideological dangers that threaten and subvert the unity of the Body of Christ.

            Some in the conservative Reformed community evince a laudable desire to overcome racial injustice, but they often seek to understand racial divisions by relying on categories drawn from the “critical theory” of secular academia (e.g., notions of “white privilege,” “white guilt,” “intersectionality,” and more broadly the power-analysis tradition that stems from Marx, Foucault, and others) rather than from Scripture and the Christian tradition. As a result of this uncritical borrowing, some in the church are falling headlong into the divisive identity politics that now plague the broader culture and particularly higher education.

            These secular categories are often unhelpful. For example, what are often taken to be examples of “white privilege” are simply the rights and opportunities that should be enjoyed by all, and the appropriate response is not to engender subjective feelings of “white guilt” but to work to extend these rights and opportunities to all. Furthermore, the notion of “white privilege” is artificial in that many non-Caucasians are similarly “advantaged,” while poor whites often experience problems and disadvantages similar to those experienced by impoverished people of color. While such thinking provides incentives for political activism and a “stick to beat people with,” it does little to further careful analysis, productive theological reflection, and mutual understanding.

            More broadly, we contend that reducing the complexity of social relationships to issues of power, and imposing a binary logic that divides human society into oppressors and oppressed is unhelpful in a number of ways. When the rich complexity of human society and motivation is viewed largely through the lens of power analysis much is missed. Such reductionistic thinking also provides a ready rationale for unfairly marginalizing people deemed to be “politically incorrect.” Perhaps most importantly, the identity politics that flow from this fixation on race, gender, sexuality, etc. are powerful centrifugal forces that have the potential to tear not only society but also the church apart. Such a focus on identity almost inevitably gives rise to a psychology of ressentiment, with its anger and desire for revenge.

            In short, the grand inclusive vision—one rooted not in identitarian difference but in what people share in common—of racial reconciliation evident, for example, in the work of African-American Presbyterian pastor Francis J. Grimké is being tragically subverted. Grimké drew deeply and decisively on the Christian tradition for his views of justice and social change, and he knew well that secular solutions would not suffice. He wrote: “I am hopeful, because I have faith in the power of the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ to conquer all prejudices, to break down all walls of separation, and to weld together men of all races in one great brotherhood.” (The Works of Francis J. Grimké [1942], I:267).

            We believe, not only that such secular categories are inherently divisive, but that there is a better way. Drawing on the Christian doctrine of Creation, we affirm that all people are created in the image of God, that all possess a dignity and value that flow from their relationship to their Creator rather than from the contingencies of race, gender, and ethnicity.

            Drawing on the Christian doctrine of sin and the fall, we affirm that all people are sinners and that sin affects every aspect of our existence. All stand in need of God’s grace and mercy. While sinfulness can express itself in different ways depending upon social location, and God does have a special concern for the poor and marginalized, there is no “superior virtue of the oppressed.” The fashionable notion today that only white people can be racists stands in stark tension with this Christian doctrine of sin.

            Drawing on the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, we affirm that the Second Person of the Trinity has united himself with humanity and become a member of the human community forever, and that this has powerful implication for our understanding human dignity and community. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “All the great writers of antiquity were a part of the aristocracy of masters . . . and it was necessary that Jesus Christ come to earth to make it understood that all members of the human species are naturally alike and equal” (Democracy in America [2000], 413).

            Finally, drawing on the Christian doctrines of Reconciliation and the Church, we affirm with the Apostle Paul that in Christ “there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” We insist that this union of the Church with Christ in his obedient death, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension—intended in the eternal purposes of God and accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit—is more concrete and vital than the contingent social distinctions of race, gender, and ethnicity, and that this unity of the Church must not be subverted by dubious and irremediably divisive secular theories.

            August 31, 2017”

            TheEcclesialCalvinist
            Musings of a Paleo-Orthodox Ecclesial Calvinist

          • Gerald Lawson

            Translation: Amos Moses hates homosexuals.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            hmmmm …. i do not think it was even mentioned in that …….. nope … it was not …. and you are now a liar ………

          • Larry

            Yes, I agree, everyone knows that God hates f*gs!

          • Bob Johnson

            But in the 19th century plenty was written about the Bible’s scriptural prohibitions of interracial relationships. You might start with Bishop of Vermont John Henry Hopkins’ pamphlet “Biblical view of slavery”

        • Larry

          Hey Bud, I think you’re banging your head against the wall trying to reason with the unreasonable. They hate gays and that’s all there is to it. It’s just pathetic that they use God as their excuse to do so.

          • Beamer

            That’s true, they do use God as their excuse, but true followers of Jesus are not like them and you should be pointing them out, not all Christians.

            There are many Christians that don’t agree with the opinions of some of the posters here that only read the comments and never comment or up-vote. It was suggested to me to try to post to show the proper behaviour that Jesus asks us to display as an alternate to their way of discussing the matter of sin.
            I think that these Christians seem to think only about sin. They judge who is sinning and bang, they think about that sin…and talk about it…which they are not supposed to do… and then they go to town telling the sinner about the punishment that they believe the sinner will have when the day comes. They say how God loves the sinner, but they do not explain how God can love and hate the sinner both… because that is what it sounds like if you take out the part about salvation, repentance, and Eternal life.
            Jesus’ last commandments were all about love. Sin was not mentioned in them, like the 10 commandments… not at all… just love.
            I think that says a lot all by itself.
            As I have loved you, Love each other.

      • brucewang

        “Satanic”. Are you ACTUALLY serious?

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “If a bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to an interfaith couple….”

      false premise … it is not an interfaith couple ….. and not comparable ….. marriage is a good thing if they are “interfaith” or not ….. but homo-mirage …. AINT ………

      “If a bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple ….”

      again ….. false premise … it is not an interracial couple ….. and not comparable ….. your are tryingAGAIN to conflate race and DEPRAVITY ……. marriage is a good thing if they are “interracial” or not ….. but homo-mirage …. AINT ………

      “If a bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because the business owner opposed relationships between people of different sexes, this would be considered discrimination”

      and yet due to your worldview …. you have no basis for making that claim …. discrimination is not universally bad …. nor is it “hate” ………… marriage is a good thing and homo-mirage … AINT ……….

      you have no DEPRAVITY rights delineated in the constitution nor even a right to a mirage …. a SCOTUS case is not law … it is an OPINION ….. SCOTUS has no authority to make law ….. and while they declared opposition to homo-mirage “unconstitutional” …… that does not make homo-mirage a law ………… only a LEGISLATURE has that power in this country ………

      • Michael C

        Are you saying that people who oppose interfaith or interracial marriage don’t have the freedom of religion?

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          i said what i said … and that was not it …… there is no comparison between the two you mention and depravity ……….

          • Michael C

            Does a business owner who opposes interfaith or interracial relationships have the religious freedom to refuse to sell these customers a cake or not?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            he has the right to refuse service to anyone ….. for his own personal reason ….. any reason really …. now he or she may do so at their own business peril …. but no one is required to act against their personal beliefs … despite what the law says ………. they could deny service to christians … some have and do ……….. there were no consequences ………..

          • Michael C

            he has the right to refuse service to anyone ….. for his own personal reason ….. any reason really ….

            I’m sorry, my bad. I should have known better than to engage you in conversation.

      • Amen.

        That’s such a false comparison….glad you caught it. It’s also very disrespectful to compare sin to the color of a person’s skin…false equivalency.

        Behavior is sin, race is not sin because it’s not a behavior.

        This issue is exposing the fact that some very desperate, rebellious folk wish racism on others because they’re sinful behavior is not covered by the civil rights act, which was never intended to cover a behavior choice anyway. This issue exposes the real racists 🙂

        • Blake Paine

          What behavior? Sexual orientation is no more a behavior than the drive to church on Sunday is a religion.

          There were many that justified racism with Abrahamic Scripture during the Civil Rights era just as some religionists do for gay people today. Since every customer has a right to their own beliefs in neither case does the business owner’s prejudices last under constitutional scrutiny.

          Either the business sells wedding cakes to the public legally or it shouldn’t offer them to the public at all.

          • Larry

            A-MEN!

        • DonBlath

          You are a hateful fuckpig, Lady Checkmate. A homosexual has as much control over their orientation as you do with the color of your skin. There are homosexuals in this world and human sexuality has been extensively studied but you would rather hate and call people names. Your kind of Christian is the kind that actually deserve to be attacked for your evil trash.

        • Garbage Adams

          What an utterly disgusting thing to say. Homosexuality is not behavior. It’s not what you do, it’s what you are. If you don’t believe me, you could he homosexual your entire life and never touch another person. How is that behavior? And you dare blame this on “racism”.

        • Bob Johnson

          Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically outlaws discrimination based on religion, I would say that your “never intended to cover a behavior” is incorrect.

        • Larry

          And everyone knows that it is okay to point out the “sins” of others! Just ask Matthew 7:1-5.

        • Beamer

          Everyone sins, Lady Checkmate. So why should one sin be punished when no others except murder, and rape are?
          Why should anyone suffer from any discrimination for any reason when Jesus told us to love one another.

          Matthew 22:39
          39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

          Discrimination is not done with Love as Jesus wants us to behave with.

          He never once told us to treat anyone badly, or interfere with their lives just because of their sins. He did tell us to treat everyone the way we want to be treated as well.

          The Lord tests each of us to strengthen our faith and he also tests us to see if we are acting like Christians. This is shown by Jesus’ examples

          Matthew 25:
          44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
          hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did
          not minister unto thee?
          45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch
          as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
          46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
          righteous into life eternal.

          If you do not treat everyone properly, one of them might be a test to see if you care about others to see if you will help the naked and the hungry in the streets. You see those are the ways Jesus wants us to show others we are good Christians; by helping them have better lives. He never said that we should deny anything because of a person’s sin.

          Jesus would want us to help anyone especially to help them understand the Gospel. And to show the love for each other that Jesus wants us to show to magnify the Glory of God. According to Jesus’ commandments we are to love God above all else, and our neighbours as ourselves.

          Please consider this before you speak of gays in a derisive manner again. I am telling you this as a follower of Jesus to a sister who is making a mistake that can cause her to lose her salvation. Obviously if Jesus would point out that the people who did not those things that he mentioned would have the punishment of death, it is a sin to treat anyone badly.

          Discrimination itself is a sin.
          We are also told Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

        • Jeffery Peerless

          What a totally loathsome pig you are. This is what Christianity means to you, right? Hating on people you don’t even take the time to understand? Hell is too good for disgusting vermin like you Lady Checkmate.

        • Gerald Lawson

          Could you BE any more of a douche bag? Homosexuality isn’t chosen and isn’t a behavior.

        • Waykent

          What are you doing here, Lady Checkmate? Do you actually have the gall to show yourself outside your little echo chambers?

      • Larry

        Why, listen to you! “Christian” love at it’s finest! It’s not the baker’s hate, it’s God’s, everyone knows that God hates f*gs!

        • Beamer

          Actually, Jesus loves everyone and asks us to love everyone too. Some people do not follow all of Jesus’ examples he gave to us about our behaviour as Christians.
          There seems to be many ‘degrees’ of Christians and that means that not all Christians are ‘the same’.
          I prefer to pick and choose who I listen to or reply to. It’s the best way for me to have peace and still be able to post to point out there are more Christians like me, who does not always act disagreeable even when we disagree.
          Have a Blessed day/night!

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          well since your definition of love is askew …. i am going to let that go …. love does not equal approval ….. hate does not equal disagreement ………. get some new material ………

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “If this bakery prevails before the Supreme Court, it will have serious effect on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It will open the door for discrimination on the basis of race and religion that have been believed to be protected for the past half-century.”

      the door is already open ……… there are a number of black pastors in this country who desire to have segregated black christian churches ….. that is not christianity ….. and i can remember when white politicians were excoriated for belonging to all white churches ….. and it seems we are coming full circle to a time many of us thought was past ……….

      • Michael C

        Churches are exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Open a book.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          churches are exempt from a lot of thing …. read the first amendment …….. “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” …………

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

      • Blake Paine

        Churches are considered private organizations by association. They aren’t making offers to the public for anything other than membership, they get to decide who is a member or not.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          sure … but was not really the point i was making ………..

          • Blake Paine

            I’m never sure what point you’re making.

    • mr goody two shoes

      If some one came in wanting a cake to celebrate child rape I would bet this fellow would do the same because he knows from bible studies that’s wrong to.

      • Michael C

        Nowhere in the US are child rapist protected from discrimination.

        • brucewang

          I pull my hair out when I hear that idiotic line. I’d sure like to know who supports child rape in these people’s minds.

          • Larry

            Isn’t it interesting that only so-called “Christians” ever talk about child rape?

          • brucewang

            To them, it’s the same exact thing as homosexuality. At least most of the people here would say so.

      • Larry

        Yes, Jesus only died on the cross for “straight” people! Everyone knows that God hates f*gs!

        • Beamer

          Stop saying that! Not all Christians believe that way. It’s not true, Jesus died for everyone he did not discriminate when he died for us. Each and every person is loved by God. Whether they are sinners or not, God loves them. It is not until Judgement Day that anyone will be punished for sins, and that is for the people who do not choose to follow Jesus and do not repent for their sins. Everyone has the choice to follow Jesus and walk like Jesus would and love everyone, or to choose not to follow Jesus and be in charge of your own life without help or guidance from the Lord God Almighty. This life without God will end with your sin punished by death.
          Everyone can choose what they want to believe and what they want to do about that belief.

  • Ginger

    Christ teaching Luke 12:8 “Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:” [KJV]
    Our Father speaks to us through His Word. How many really study it to hear His truths?
    Sodomy is an abomination in both Old Testament and New Testament. Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:5, Romans 1:26-27.
    As Christians we are to make a stand.
    2 John 1:11 “For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” [KJV]
    If we do not say we are against it. We are judged for that omission.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      i agree with what you are saying … but you are not using scripture in context ….. that is not proper …….

    • Beamer

      I am against it because God has told me that it is a sin. I trust Jesus and if he has a reason that it is a sin, I must follow what he says in faith. What I am against is any person being treated badly as a punishment for any sin.

      I do not have to wish someone a good day, and be a partaker of his evil deeds, especially if you are not aware of those evil deeds yourself.

      Listening to another telling you that someone is a sinner, is like gossip and should not be committed to belief without checking it out ourselves. We are not to just believe someone’s account of their sins. Getting past your checking it, is a trick that the Devil uses to get people to sin against God.

      I’ve read and am reading the gospel and know them quite well.
      I do have one thing I’d like to ask you about.

      Jesus told us to treat each other the way we want to be treated, love each other and did not give exceptions to who we are to love: we are to love everyone.

      How do you yourself tell gay people about their sin and about Jesus? I’m asking because I find a lot of posters here just like to point out that the gays are worthless in God’s eyes, which is not true and not of God’s Word. These agree with yelling at a group of gays that they are sinners and are going to hell and that god loves them and wants them to repent. That gives nothing to the people who are listening. They will stop listening after hearing that the people yelling are sending them to hell, or their God is.

      All people need to hear the whole gospel. Just telling them their sin is not enough. That is like you are convicting them of never turning to Jesus when you cannot know if they will before they die.

      No matter who you are, you are a sinner too, and God sees all sin as equal to each other, so why do you think you should act in a hateful manner when you are representing Jesus? Because treating anyone badly is a sin, flat out no questions.

      Jesus made it obvious when he gave the examples of people who are expecting to go to heaven that ignored others who needed things they could give them, not realizing they were as if they were Jesus himself as spoken by Jesus himself.

      Jesus said treat Everyone with love and care for their life, and had nothing to say that was in the negative. We can tell people about Salvation without the yelling and sounding hateful towards the sinner, who is the one who is listening.

      Would you want to be yelled at as a sinner the way the Christians yell at the gays for their sin?

      Loving them and telling them of their sin should be done with Love, and not confused with the hate of the sin.

      I’d like to hear your reply post too.

      Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

  • Carla Macahilig

    This is crazy, my gay friend had iBride arranged their wedding and found a vendor for them to supply everything, cake and all.

  • peanut butter

    If stomping on our Nation’s flag is ‘speech’ then so is baking a cake. I’m glad we have God back on our side. Looks like He wants to save this Nation after all. He’s putting things back to where they were before we got the overreaching Obama. Repent and seek His face, so He will heal our land!