US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Mississippi’s Freedom of Conscience Act

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a Fifth Circuit ruling that upheld Mississippi’s “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” a bill meant to shelter residents from punishment when acting in accordance with their religious convictions in regard to the institution of marriage.

The court denied the cases of Barber v. Bryant and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant on Monday without explanation, a move welcomed by those on the legal team defending the Mississippi legislation.

“The 5th Circuit was right to find that those opposing this law haven’t been harmed and, therefore, can’t try to take it down. Because of that, we are pleased that the Supreme Court declined to take up these baseless challenges, which misrepresented the law’s sole purpose of ensuring that Mississippians don’t live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses simply for affirming marriage as a husband-wife union,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said in a statement.

As previously reported, the Freedom of Conscience Act was signed into law in April 2016 by Gov. Phil Bryant, who identifies as a Christian. The bill prohibits the government from punishing those who decline to officiate same-sex ceremonies or provide services or accommodations for the celebrations, as well as those whose policies require use of locker and restrooms consistent with their biological gender.

It does not permit persons to refuse service in general, but only to decline forms of personal participation in events that conflict with their faith.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a legal challenge, which was later joined by others. In June 2016, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves struck down part of H.B. 1523, while leaving the rest of the law intact.

Focusing on the officiation portion of the legislation, he issued an order stating that all 82 county clerks must issue same-sex “marriage” licenses to homosexuals despite their religious beliefs, opining that an opt-out would run contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Having reviewed the relevant section of HB 1523, the parties’ arguments, and the scope of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell, the Court finds that (Section) 3(8)(a) may in fact amend Mississippi’s marriage licensing regime in such a way as to conflict with Obergefell,” Reeves wrote.

“Mississippi’s elected officials may disagree with Obergefell, of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit—by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example,” he said. “But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after every legislative session.”

The state appealed, and in June 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Reeves’ injunction, stating that the plaintiffs who filed the legal challenge did not have standing to sue because they could not demonstrate any actual harm created by the law.

“[T]he plaintiffs have not shown an injury-in-fact caused by H.B. 1523 that would empower the district court or this court to rule on its constitutionality,” the three-judge panel wrote.

“We do not foreclose the possibility that a future plaintiff may be able to show clear injury-in-fact that satisfies the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,’ but the federal courts must withhold judgment unless and until that plaintiff comes forward,” it said.

The ruling was then appealed to the nation’s highest court, but on Monday, it was allowed to stand.

“Those who haven’t been and won’t be harmed by this law shouldn’t be allowed to restrict freedom for others by ensuring dissenters are left open to the government discrimination that has already occurred in states without protective laws like this one,” ADF’s Theriot said in a statement.

Groups such as Lambda Legal said that they would still file a constitutional challenge against the law in the courts.

“We will keep fighting in Mississippi until we overturn this harmful law, and in any state where anti-gay legislators pass laws to roll back LGBT civil rights,” remarked attorney Beth Littrell. “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s decision today leaves LGBT people in Mississippi in the crosshairs of hate and humiliation, delaying justice and equality.”

As previously reported, another case involving the rights of those who decline to be involved in same-sex celebrations due to their faith, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral argument was heard in that case on Dec. 5, and a decision is expected in June 2018.


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
  • james blue

    We shouldn’t expect special protections for ourselves. It should also be legal to refuse goods and services to people of faith.

    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.

  • Ken

    It’s a crazy world when someone with a conscience is accused of “discrimination.”

    • Etranger

      It is even crazier that someone who claims to have a good conscience discriminates!

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        “It is even crazier that someone who claims to have a good conscience discriminates!”

        Discrimination is using good sense to avoid terrible consequences ……… It is even crazier that someone who claims to have a good conscience DOES NOT discriminate! ……… FYI ….. there is NONE good ……….

        3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
        3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
        3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
        3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
        3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
        3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
        3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
        3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
        3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
        3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
        3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
        3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
        3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
        3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
        3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
        3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
        3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
        3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
        3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

        • DrIndica

          What book of the Bible is that from, Reverend?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Romans

          • DrIndica

            Thank-you…I’ll check it out.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            😉

      • meamsane

        The basic definition of conscience is to have a sense of right or wrong in one’s conduct and thoughts, to impel right action.

        You think having a moral conscience is crazy?

        • Etranger

          I totally understand what conscience is and means. One cannot have a good conscience and discriminate against someone because they are different and doing no harm.

          • meamsane

            But like a fascist, you would like the government to come in and discriminate by force of law against someone’s personal integrity and morality regarding marriage, and chuck that belief because a small minority don’t like that belief? Got it!

          • Etranger

            Lol. Your comment is little grounded in any reality. Fascist?! Government coercion? You are out there!!

          • meamsane

            Sure! You want the government to restrict other people’s rights so you don’t have to be offended. This is what LGBT want’s and are calling for the courts to do. Just look at the recent Masterpiece Cake shop case. I’m not out there at all.

          • Etranger

            Asking people to provide goods and services to people is not fascist or discriminatory. Let me guess, you were pissed when businesses had to seat blacks in the main dining room too?

          • meamsane

            Homosexuality and being black are not the same.
            Providing goods and services is not the issue. The issue is specifically Marriage and the fact that in these type’s of cases, every homosexual has been able to get what they asked for without problem, but somewhere else. So, it is not really about discrimination but about the fact that those who do not want to do something (homosexual weddings) that they do not believe in, and that they believe it is wrong, want these people to be forced by government edict to comply.

          • Etranger

            It is exactly about discrimination. Nobody’s beliefs are being punished.

          • meamsane

            Expecting Christians to give up their belief and practice because homosexuals demand it, is pushing their beliefs!

          • Etranger

            Yes that would be wrong. No such thing is happening. No Christians are expected to give up their beliefs.

          • vicnicholls

            Believe it was Voddie Baucham who said Don’t equate sin with the color of my skin.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            he is not the only one ……… but YUP ………..

          • SFBruce

            “So, it is not really about discrimination…”

            Nonsense. Of course it’s about discrimination; the only question is whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is right, and whether it should be permitted under the law. There simply is no question about the fact that Mississippi offers no protection to gay people against discrimination, and Mississippians already had freedom of conscience before this misnamed Freedom of Conscience bill became law. Except for a few cities, it was perfectly legal to turn gay people away, including bakers and florists. Unfortunately, this law gutted the protections for gay people in Mississippi’s handful of cities which had decided to offer them. As for your argument that we should just go somewhere else, what if everyone decides gay money is just too dirty for them to touch? Should the four African-American college students who defied the law when they sat down at a Woolworth’s in 1960 also just have gone somewhere else? I’m glad they didn’t; the country is a better place for their actions.

            Of course, sexual orientation and race are different attributes, but the two groups share at least one thing: both have been unfairly marginalized.

          • meamsane

            Just like a tactic of the left, you appeal to racism as if that is the same thing here.

          • Etranger

            Discrimination is discrimination. It actually is the same thing in these instances. You think white shop owners didn’t have sincere beliefs that they had to compromise?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Discrimination is discrimination.”

            semantically null ………….

          • Morduin00

            How many businesses in the same town as Masterpiece would have provided services to the couple? If there is at least one, why is it so important for the couple to do business with someone that has a religious/moral objection? Since there is no moral requirement to buy a service, why should there be a moral requirement to provide a service?

          • Etranger

            Maybe the couple liked Masterpiece Cakeshop’s cakes. Maybe they tasted better than the other bakeries’ cakes.

          • SFBruce

            Would you be OK with a white nationalist business owner turning away African-Americans as long as at least one other business in that community caters to them? I certainly wouldn’t.

          • vicnicholls

            I wouldn’t want to patronize a business that did that, so yes, I’d want to know. Btw, don’t equate sin with the color of someones’ skin.

          • SFBruce

            Racial discrimination has been against federal law since 1964, so any business who does so will have some legal problems. I wasn’t really asking Morduin00 if he’d want to know about such discrimination, I was asking if he was OK with applying his logic to business owners who oppose race mixing. I meant it as a kind of thought experiment. And I didn’t “equate” skin color with sin. First of all, I don’t think physical intimacy between two consenting adults is sinful, and secondly, I specifically said, “sexual orientation and race are different attributes.”

          • Morduin00

            That is where the whole idea of capitalism comes from… you give business to those you want. Those businesses would struggle to make ends meet or would be successful based on the clientele, not government interference. If the situations were reversed, where the African American business owner would turn away a known white nationalist, would you hold that business owner to the same standard?

          • SFBruce

            The hypothetical you raise is an odd one. Since white nationalists believe the races shouldn’t mix, I doubt if they make a habit of frequenting African-American owned businesses. The fact that you dodged my question in this way leads me to believe you’d be fine if that same white nationalist turns away African-American customers. Please correct my inference if it’s wrong.

          • Morduin00

            You are incorrect. I am not advocating discrimination in any way. I am only applying a mirrored logic test. For a concept to be non-hypocritical, it has to be true regardless of who does what in a situation. I am only asking if you would hold the african-american business to the same standard you would hold a white nationalist business to?

            You were the one that picked the subjects of the inquiry. Maybe you should have used Black Panthers and White Nationalists in your inquiry. In that case, I would have encouraged the customer to visit a more friendly establishment… not because of discrimination, but because of safety. The majority of African-Americans and Caucasians get along just fine, without discrimination.

          • SFBruce

            Now you say, “I am not advocating discrimination in any way.” However, in an earlier comment you said, “If there is at least one, why is it so important for the couple to do business with someone that has a religious/moral objection?” You were talking about the Masterpiece Cakes case, where a gay couple was turned away because of the owner’s religious beliefs. That is, by definition, discrimination, and in the state of Colorado, illegal. I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has eased at least some racial problems and I support the fact that it’s been expanded to include other groups. I would support inclusion of LGBT people as a protected class. Your larger argument seems to be all anti-discrimination laws should be abolished and let the market resolve this.

            All business, whether they are owned by a Black Panther or a White Nationalist, must comply with federal and local laws.

          • Michael C

            This is how civil rights laws work. Civil rights laws require all businesses to obey the same laws.

            A restaurant cannot refuse service to Jewish customers even if the restaurant across the street willingly serves them because we as a society have decided that discrimination on the basis of religion is unacceptable.

            A minority of states have decided that discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation is also unacceptable.

            If you oppose civil rights laws, that’s fine. You’re not the only one.

          • Morduin00

            My point is that these groups are deliberately targeting these businesses instead of going somewhere they would be more welcomed.

          • Michael C

            My point is that these groups are deliberately targeting these businesses instead of going somewhere they would be more welcomed.

            First of all, these are people. Regular customers. Normal people. People like you or me just going into a store to purchase a thing that the store sells. These are people, not “groups.”

            Second, there’s no evidence that these businesses are being “targeted.” In fact, in a few of these cases, the customers were actually repeat customers. The customers had no inkling that they’d be refused service.

            Lastly, you’re acting as if some businesses shouldn’t be expected to obey the same laws that everyone else must follow. If a bakery doesn’t want gay customers (or their friends and family), they can post a sign explaining their religious views on homosexuality and marriage. As long as they’d be willing to serve all customers equally when asked, a sign would be totally legal. No gay customer (or their friends and family) would want to give this business their money. They would find a different bakery.

            So why don’t these bakeries post such a sign? Because they want money. Because they want to be able to refuse service to gay customers when they feel like it but they don’t want to lose other customers.

            Another option for these bakeries is to stop offering products or services to the general public if they’re not actually willing to sell them to all of the general public.

          • Reason2012

            No, Michael, the ones that file lawsuits are no more normal than anti-black fascists seeking out black business owners trying to force them to support racist, anti-black acts, then trying to ruin their life they do not submit.

          • Morduin00

            Which freedoms trump others?

          • Michael C

            Which freedoms trump others?

            Do you believe that open-to-the-public businesses are granted the freedom to refuse service to customers on the basis of their inclusion in a protected class?

            Where is this freedom defined?

          • Reason2012

            They’re not being denied service – they have no problem serving them. You’ve been told this time and again. They’re denying the request from every customer they ever have, into homosexuality or not, to support anti-Christian acts, Michael. Why do you think some people’s desire for homosexual behavior and promoting it trumps everyone else’s religious rights?

          • Morduin00

            See… that is what you do not understand. Freedom of religion is a right. Free association is a right. Marriage is a privilege. Purchasing a product is a privilege. You do not give up your rights just because you own a business. Our basic freedoms are defined in the Constitution…. another thing you just do not get.

          • Michael C

            Freedom of religion is a right. Free association is a right.

            Are you saying that the First Amendment grants businesses the right to refuse service to customers if it’s against their religion of if they simply don’t want to associate with them?

            Your argument appears to be against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all other nondiscrimination laws. That’s not an argument I’m interested in having.

          • Reason2012

            Are you saying that the First Amendment grants businesses the right to refuse service to customers if it’s against their religion of if they simply don’t want to associate with them?

            They do not refuse them service because they don’t want to associate with them – they have no problem serving those into homosexual activity. They will decline all people, currently into homosexuality or not, the request to support anti-Christian acts. You’ve been told this over and over again but you continue to repeat the false claim that they refuse to serve them at all, which exposes you as an anti-Christian bigoted deceiver that is spreading anti-Christian propaganda. America is waking up to the real reason LGBT “activists” (who actually defend islam) wanted the government to redefine what God defined, what existed before any government did: marriage: a man and a woman- these LGBT “activists” use it as a means of pushing their anti-Christian fascism.

          • Michael C

            When you create your own government and make your own laws, you can decide how they’re applied. You don’t, however, get to tell these states what their laws mean. They get to decide that for themselves. I’m just telling you what their own laws are and how they’re choosing to apply their own laws.

            ‘Cuz they’re their laws, not your laws.

            You’ve been told this over and over again but you continue to repeat the false claim that they refuse to serve them at all

            I’ve never claimed that these businesses always discriminate against gay people. A business can get into trouble even if they illegally discriminate just one time.

          • Reason2012

            When you create your own government and make your own laws, you can decide how they’re applied.

            This country belongs to all of us, not just to lgbt activist fascists. When lgbt fascist activists make their own government and make their own laws, they can decide how they’re applied.

            You don’t, however, get to tell these states what their laws mean. They get to decide that for themselves.

            No, We The People govern ourselves, not We The
            Anti-Christian Fascists.

            I’m just telling you what their own laws are and how they’re choosing to apply their own laws.

            No, you’re perverting out laws and perverting what they supposedly means. For a racist to seek out black business owners to support racists, anti-black acts with this business, this person seeking them out would be the bigot – you twist it into the black person “discriminating” because he refuses to cave to the bigoted request.

            And so it goes with lgbt fascists that seek out Christians with their anti-Christ fascist requests.

          • Michael C

            This country belongs to all of us

            If you don’t like the laws in your state, you can contact your local representative to ask that they be repealed or rewritten. If your local representative is unwilling or unable to help you, don’t vote for them in the next election.

            For a racist to seek out black business owners to support racists, anti-black acts with this business…

            I don’t know what you’re talking about so I’m unable to respond (but it appears that you just simply don’t understand how the law work).

            If you’d like flesh out this hypothetical scenario a bit, perhaps I’d be able to react to it. What exactly is this hypothetical customer requesting? Tell me the whole story.

          • Morduin00

            One can make the argument that the Civil Rights Act, not being a Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional as it modifies the constitutional law. Just as woman’s sufferage and nonwhites were granted rights by constitutional amendment, so could the others. However, I could also make the argument that those constitutional amendments were not necessary in their current form.

          • Michael C

            If you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional, you should really lead with that in conversations like this.

          • Reason2012

            Michael supports the anti-Christian targeting of Christian business owners, forcing them to support anti-Christian acts, lest he claim “discrimination” for not allowing Christians to be victimized and their lives ruined. These business owners have no problem serving those currently into homosexuality, but Michael lies and claims they refuse to serve them at all, when the truth is they instead refuse to cave into their anti-Christian bigotry in trying to force them to support anti-Christian acts with their business. Now we see why these activists lied and claimed “how will same-gender marriage affect you?” until it was passed, and now we see why they wanted such a legal sledge hammer to go after Christians.

          • james blue

            Should it be legal to refuse goods, services, employment etc. To Christians?

            For example a non Christian landlord who doesn’t want to rent to Christians who will pray in his property/

            Should employers be forced by law to accommodate our faith? For example a Christian photographer who is employed by a company that caters weddings, should his employer have to accommodate his faith when he doesn’t want to do a gay wedding?

      • Lydia Church

        So why are they discriminating against us Christians then? I guess they don’t claim to have a good conscience.

        • Etranger

          Haven’t seen discrimination against Christians.

  • Michael C

    According to the state of Mississippi (and the majority of other states), it’s 100% acceptable for businesses to fire employees just because they’re gay, deny people a place to live just because they’re gay, and refuse customers service at stores and restaurants just because they’re gay.

    This “freedom to discriminate” law isn’t incredibly surprising coming out of Mississippi.

    • Vince

      Yeah, yeah, we hear this all the time.

      How about some DATA about how many gays are fired for being gay. You know, real-world statistics. If you want your heart-breaking narrative pack a real wallop, give us some FACTS to go on. Not just “gays fired” but “gays fired for being gay.”

      There are thousands upon thousands of laws that are not enforced. Claiming that “people can be fired for being gay” does NOT equal “people are being fired for being gay.”

      Take your time, we’ll wait.

      • Etranger

        Why do you need data on how many people were fired for being gay? That is irrelevant to the fact that it is legal to do so… very weird request on your part.

        • Vince

          Because otherwise you have no proof that the laws are even being applied, you moron.

          You got HIV dementia?.

          • Etranger

            LOL – well here are a couple of cases in the link for you. You have a wonderful Christian demeanor now dontcha? 🙂 Such a peach.

            Well, no link is able to be provided. Vandy Beth Glenn lost her job with the Georgia General Assembly when her boss fired her because she was transgender:

            [My boss] told me I would make other people uncomfortable, just by being myself. He told me that my transition was unacceptable. And over and over, he told me it was inappropriate. Then he fired me. I was escorted back to my desk, told to clean it out, then marched out of the building…I was devastated.

            Brook Waits was gainfully employed in Dallas, Texas until her manager fired her immediately after she saw a picture on Brook’s cell phone of Brook and her girlfriend kissing on New Year’s Eve:

            I didn’t lose my job because I was lazy, incompetent, or unprofessional. Quite the contrary, I worked hard and did my job very well. However that was all discarded when my boss discovered I am a lesbian. In a single afternoon, I went from being a highly praised employee, to out of a job.

            And officer Michael Carney was denied reinstatement as a police officer in Springfield, Massachusetts because he told his supervisors that he was gay:

            I’m a good cop. But I’ve lost two and a half years of employment fighting to get that job back because I’m gay…I’m proud to be Irish-American. I’m proud to be gay, and I’m proud to be a cop in Springfield, MA.

          • Etranger

            LOL – well here are a couple of cases in the link for you. You have a wonderful Christian demeanor now dontcha? 🙂 Such a peach.

            Well, no link is able to be provided. Vandy Beth Glenn lost her job with the Georgia General Assembly when her boss fired her because she was transgender:

            [My boss] told me I would make other people uncomfortable, just by being myself. He told me that my transition was unacceptable. And over and over, he told me it was inappropriate. Then he fired me. I was escorted back to my desk, told to clean it out, then marched out of the building…I was devastated.

            Brook Waits was gainfully employed in Dallas, Texas until her manager fired her immediately after she saw a picture on Brook’s cell phone of Brook and her girlfriend kissing on New Year’s Eve:

            I didn’t lose my job because I was lazy, incompetent, or unprofessional. Quite the contrary, I worked hard and did my job very well. However that was all discarded when my boss discovered I am a lesbian. In a single afternoon, I went from being a highly praised employee, to out of a job.

            And officer Michael Carney was denied reinstatement as a police officer in Springfield, Massachusetts because he told his supervisors that he was gay:

            I’m a good cop. But I’ve lost two and a half years of employment fighting to get that job back because I’m gay…I’m proud to be Irish-American. I’m proud to be gay, and I’m proud to be a cop in Springfield, MA.

          • Vince

            You quote the guy who was fired. That is not proof. Justice involves hearing both sides. I’m sure his boss had a different version. You assume the trannie was telling the truth. Why?

          • Etranger

            The fact is that people who are fired and suspect it was becuase they were gay (as in the lady with stellar performance reviews and then fired) have no legal recourse in many states. Because the law allows it. No need for anyone to lie… Certainly no need for personal attacks – especially
            on a “christian” site! (This is not rocket science…it is basic understanding of the legal system…)

          • Vince

            “suspect it was because they were gay.”

            And you consider that DATA?

            Homosexuality really is a mental illness

            Good nights. Enjoy your dementia.

          • Etranger

            Some folks are just evil and nasty to the core and no amount of religion helps them. Very sad….

        • SFBruce

          According to the UCLA School of Law, “According to studies from the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, between 15 and 43 percent of LGBT people have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace as a result of their sexual orientation. Even more staggering is the proportion of transgender individuals who have had such experiences: 90%. Furthermore, only 21 states have passed laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the law only extends to include gender identity in 16 of those states.”

          • Vince

            We’re talking about being FIRED.

            Stay on topic..

          • SFBruce

            And I’m talking about the larger issue of workplace discrimination and harassment, including, of course, being fired. Losing one’s job isn’t the only vulnerability LGBT people face at work. All of it is wrong and unfair.

          • Vince

            Yep, except you have no data that it even happens.

            I’m not wasting any more time on liars.
            Good night.

          • SFBruce

            Read the first comment of mine you responded to, then get back to me, preferably without the name-calling.

      • Michael C

        How about some DATA…

        On the federal level, the EEOC reports that about 2% of charges concern sexual orientation discrimination. …and the federal government doesn’t even expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

        If you look at the individual state reports, you’ll find that people often face discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation at higher rates than by religion.

        How much anti-gay discrimination, exactly, is okay with you?

        Do you believe that it’s okay to discriminate against gay women and men in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Yes or no?

    • Reason2012

      No one’s fired or denied service because they’re happy. Now if you’re talking about being into homosexuality:

      Please prove “it’s 100% acceptable for businesses to fire employees just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

      Please prove “it’s 100% acceptable to deny people a place to live just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

      Please prove “it’s 100% acceptable to refuse customers service at stores and restaurants just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

      You never can, but just repeat the false claim, which exposes your real intent to deceive and push your anti-Christian bigotry.

      • Michael C

        While Mississippi law prohibits businesses from refusing employment, housing, and service at stores and restaurants on the basis of a person’s race, religion, sex, national origin, etc., Mississippi law does not prohibit businesses from discriminating against gay people in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

        If businesses aren’t prohibited from discriminating against gay people, this means that it is acceptable for them to do so.

        Please let me know if any part of that didn’t make sense and I’ll be happy to elaborate.

        • Jon Staples

          He doesn’t care… that’s how he wants it. He feels those who choose to follow the same religion he has chosen should be treated special, and given special rights.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            SO DO YOU ……….

          • Jon Staples

            Not a bit.

            Please list one, just one, “special right” I’m pushing for that folks who choose to follow mythology don’t already get?

            I want them for everyone… not just one group.

            I eagerly await your response.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            first you have to prove it to be mythology for your paradigm to be valid ….. get back to me on that ………..

          • Jon Staples

            Please… show me ONE, just ONE special right that folks who follow religion do not already have.

            Just one.

            Come on sweetie…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your desire and need to alter the language so that you can justify what you do ….. THAT special right …………. sweetie ………….

          • Jon Staples

            Sunshine, that isn’t a “special right”… see, it applies to everyone.

            Try again…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. you have given yourself the right to redefine what has been established for millennia …… and the reason is ……. you are a cry-bully …….. and that is your made up special right ……

          • Jon Staples

            What special right, moron?

            Tell me about one right you don’t already have. I don’t think you can.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i see …. so just name calling …. that is a TOS violation …… care to rephrase that ………

          • Jon Staples

            It’s not name calling… it’s an accusation. One you cannot dispute with inaction.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … just name calling ……….

          • Jon Staples

            You make the claim that it is “truth”… until you prove that claim, it is the textbook definition of mythology.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ….. YOU claim it is myth ….. that is a positive assertion ……… and if you have no evidence to positively prove your positive assertion ….. FAIL …………..

          • Jon Staples

            If you can’t prove it’s true, it’s a myth.

            You make my case for me.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Prove gravity is real ……… not the secondary effects ….. prove it exists …………..

          • Jon Staples

            ROFLOL!!! Wow!

            You’re not very smart… another good example of why to avoid public schools.

            You end up really stupid, as you exemplify.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so you cannot …. because science has not ever proven gravity to actually exist …… now the EFFECTS of gravity does not prove its primary existence ….. as a particle or energy or a wave or any other tangible thing ….. that is PRIMARY existence ……. not secondary effects ……. so have fun ………

        • Reason2012

          So in other words you made false statements and won’t even admit it when called out on it, but make more statements you can’t back up. Just wanted others to see it.

        • Reason2012

          Still waiting for you to prove “it’s 100% acceptable for businesses to fire employees just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

          Please prove “it’s 100% acceptable to deny people a place to live just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

          Please prove “it’s 100% acceptable to refuse customers service at stores and restaurants just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

          • Michael C

            The word “legal” means permitted by law. “Permitted” and “acceptable” are synonyms.

            It is legal for businesses to discriminate against gay customers in employment, housing, and public accommodations. This means that it is acceptable

            Would you like me to define the word “synonym” for you, too?

          • Reason2012

            So since you cannot back up your claim, we can now see you were lying and you cannot even admit it now that you’ve been called out on it. Noted.

          • Michael C

            So since you cannot back up your claim, we can now see you were lying and you cannot even admit it now that you’ve been called out on it. Noted.

            Huh?

            I just explained to you that it is 100% legal (permissible, acceptable) for Mississippi businesses to discriminate against gay people. And yes, this includes firing.

            There’s no state law in Mississippi prohibiting discrimination against gay people.

            What don’t you understand about that?

          • Michael C

            I see you’ve edited your comment substantially. It’s now more than twice as long as it was when I responded to it originally. That’s inappropriate, in my opinion.

            It’s already illegal and has been to discriminate against others based on religion, “sexual orientation” and so on.

            No it isn’t. Civil rights laws work like this; The government provides a list of characteristics that cannot be used as a reason for discrimination. The federal government has outlined the basic limitations and individual states have the ability to expand upon those rules.

            Sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic on the federal level. Sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic in Mississippi law either.

            It is legal (permissible, acceptable) in Mississippi, as well as much of the rest of the country, to refuse gay men and women employment, housing, and public accommodations.

          • Reason2012

            Edited? Substantially? Hardly. I added to it what you’ve been told but ignore. IEasier than playing your “go in circles” game you like to play that you’re trying to play again, ignoring what refutes your claims, then bringing your claims up again as if they’ve never been addressed.

            So again:

            Prove “it’s 100% acceptable for businesses to fire employees just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

            Please prove “it’s 100% acceptable to deny people a place to live just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

            Please prove “it’s 100% acceptable to refuse customers service at stores and restaurants just because they’re [into homosexuality]”.

            Just because you claim it will happen doesn’t mean it does or it’s “100% acceptable”.

            And the proof is: people have gotten charged over $100,000, lost their businesses, treated as as a criminal for not even violating their beliefs to support anti-Christian / pro-homosexual acts prove there are laws (being abused to violate everyone else’s beliefs, btw) about discrimination against those who are currenty into homosexuality – it’s those very laws you claim that do not exist that are being twisted into fascist anti-Christian life-ruining acts.

            You yourself have said “It’s illegal to discriminate” against LGBT in many of your posts. Yet now you claim it’s legal to discriminate. Which is it, Michael? Does it depend on what the current issue you’re debating is that pushes your agenda best that day?

            It’s already illegal and has been to discriminate against others based on religion, “sexual orientation”, race and so on. So your claim it’s “100% acceptable” is false.

            Again, noted.

            Christians need to be protected from LGBT activists who act like anti-Christian fascists and insist on the “right” to force Christians to support anti-Christian acts with their businesses under threat of being treated like a criminal, fined over a hundred thousand dollars and their business shut down. That’s the behavior of a fascist – an anti-Christian fascist in particular.

            So when Christians are protected from LGBT anti-Christian fascists, you make the patently false claim now there’s no laws against protecting LGBT from being fired “for being homosexual”, denied housing “for being homosexual”, denied service “for being homosexual”, even at the federal level. It’s deception like this that America is waking up to.

          • Michael C

            Why are you refusing to listen? “Sexual orientation” is not a protected class in the majority of the US.

            You yourself have said “It’s illegal to discriminate” against LGBT in many of your posts. Yet now you claim it’s legal to discriminate. Which is it, Michael? Does it depend on what the current issue you’re debating is that pushes your agenda best that day?

            It depends on the location of the business. Some local governments (like Colorado or Oregon) protect citizens from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of their sexual orientation.

            The federal government does not. The majority of states don’t, either. Mississippi is one of those states that does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.

            Google it if you don’t believe me.

          • Reason2012

            Majority of states? Please cite 26 cases, one per 26 states, of people being fired because they’re currently into homosexuality You have yet to cite a single one.

            Please cite 26 cases, one per 26 states, of people being denied housing because they’re currently into homosexuality. You have yet to cite a single one.

            Please cite 26 cases, one per 26 states, of people being denied service at all because they’re currently into homosexuality. You have yet to cite a single one..

            LGBT activist act like anti-Christian fascists and make up the claim that such things happen unless they’re able to destroy the lives of those Christians who have no problem serving those currently into homosexuality but do not violate their religious beliefs to deny 100% of people who walk into their shop requests to support anti-Christian acts.

          • Michael C

            Please cite 26 cases, one per 26 states, of people being fired because they’re currently into homosexuality You have yet to cite a single one.

            Ahhh, there it is! You’ve finally realized that you were incorrect and gay people aren’t actually protected from discrimination in the majority of the US. Don’t feel bad, though. Most people mistakenly believe that gay women and men are protected from discrimination everywhere. Cuz, like, why shouldn’t they be?

            It’s actually 28 state, though. There are 28 states where it’s totally legal for businesses to refuse employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of a citizen’s sexual orientation. Those 28 states are as follows;

            Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

            …and discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in Utah but they’re totally fine with stores and restaurants refusing service to gay people.

            This has been a nice conversation. I’m glad you’ve learned something new. I’ll let you get back to your copy and pasting now. I know how busy work that is.

          • Reason2012

            Ahhh, there it is! You’ve finally realized that you were incorrect and gay people aren’t actually protected from discrimination in the majority of the US.

            Please cite where I “realize I was incorrect” when I’m instead calling you out on your false claim, Michael. Thank you for continuing to show how you’ll lie any chance you get to push your anti-Christian fascism.

            I just got done pointing out that they are protected, that the protection extends across America, as you cannot even cite cases that show otherwise.

            So again, since you cite “the majority of states” do not protect them, then it should be trivial to cite 26 cases, one per 26 states, of people being fired because they’re currently into homosexuality You have yet to cite a single one.

            Please cite 26 cases, one per 26 states, of people being denied housing because they’re currently into homosexuality. You have yet to cite a single one.

            Please cite 26 cases, one per 26 states, of people being denied service at all because they’re currently into homosexuality. You have yet to cite a single one..

            This shows they ARE protected – that federal protection really does extend to them when you lie and claim it does not.

            If you care to cite such cases, let me know.

            You won’t, because you can’t. So much for your false claim of supposed discrimination “in the majority of states”.

            If you want to stop lying about it, and stop lying about what I supposedly “realize”, let me know, otherwise I leave you to your lies since everyone else sees it. I’ll remind you of your lies when you bring this up again in the future.

          • vicnicholls

            Reason: block him. I figured out a long time ago that he doesn’t have the data and is only on here to argue, disrupt, etc. Just bothering Christians, another plot of Satan to take you away from study.

          • Reason2012

            Very true. Just showing others how he’s a deceiver. Good call nonetheless! May God bless!

          • Michael C

            Please cite 26 cases, one per 26 states

            I guess you’re not even reading my responses. Discrimination against gay men and women is legal in 28 states, not 26.

            And in order to bring a case against a business, you have to allege that a law has been broken. If there was no law, there is no case. An individual cannot bring a case against a business if that business was acting legally.

            No law = No case

            If it’s legal for a business to discriminate against a gay woman or man, that person is not able to bring a case against the business.

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t say legal case, Michael. Suddenly in this latest response you pretend suddenly I’m talking about legal cases. It shows everyone else how dishonest you really are.

            So again, since you claim “the majority of states” do not protect them, that “it’s 100% acceptable ” to fire, throw them out of their housing, discriminate against them, then it should be trivial to cite 26 cases, instances / occurrences, one per 26 states, of people being fired because they’re currently into homosexuality, of not being able to do a thing about it because “it’s 100% acceptable”. You have yet to cite a single one, which exposes your claim as an outright lie.

            Please also cite 26 cases, instances / occurrences, one per 26 states, of people being denied housing because they’re currently into homosexuality, of not being able to do a thing about it because “it’s 100% acceptable”. You have yet to cite a single one.

            Please cite 26 cases, instances / occurrences, one per 26 states, of people being refused any service at a store because they’re currently into homosexuality, of not being able to do a thing about it because “it’s 100% acceptable”. You have yet to cite a single one..

            Doesn’t happen = no occurrence, no instance, no case.

          • Michael C

            What you’re asking for is ridiculous but I’ll give you a couple of examples.

            Jameka Evans was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation at her job in the state of Georgia. She attempted to sue her employer under federal non-discrimination laws. She lost. The court’s decision contains the following quote;

            “Discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited
            by Title VII . . . ”

            Collin Dewberry and Kelley Williams were told not to come back to a Pittsburg, Texas restaurant because they don’t serve gay people.

            A Michigan doctor refused to treat the child of Krista and Jami Contreras because they’re gay.

            Katrina Martir was fired from her Kentucky teaching job for being gay.

            Robin Shahar was offered a job with the Attorney General of the State of Georgia. The offer was rescinded when the Attorney General found out that Shahar was a lesbian.

          • Reason2012

            You just got done posting

            No law = No case

            Now you suddenly shows a case where there’s no law but there is a legal case? Glad you learned something new, either that or unwittingly exposed yourself as willing to tell things that are not true.

            Now, nowhere is there proof she was fired because she’s into homosexuality, just the allegation. False allegations made all the time on so many fronts, not just being a homosexual, so the allegation proves nothing.

            So you can only cite a few allegations. What happened to “the majority of America” and “it’s 100% acceptable” – according to you, it should be rampant. A few allegations is all you can come back with? Thanks for posting.

          • Michael C

            Now you suddenly shows a case where there’s no law but there is a legal case?

            Evans was arguing that the sexual orientation discrimination she suffered falls within the sex discrimination prohibitions in the Civil Rights Act. That’s why there’s a case. She lost, though. The court did not agree with her argument.

            In her case, there is a law, but it just doesn’t apply to her.

            Now, nowhere is there proof she was fired because she’s into homosexuality, just the allegation.

            …and the courts don’t care if there’s proof. They don’t even need to investigate because it wouldn’t make a difference in the case. It doesn’t matter if there’s proof because, as the court decision clearly stated, firing an employee for homosexuality is not prohibited.

            So you can only cite one case / instance / occurrence, even that is only an allegation.

            Are you reading my comments? I provided 5 examples and several of them are clear-cut, indisputable examples of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the victims had no legal recourse because sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic in their states.

          • Reason2012

            It doesn’t matter if there’s proof because, as the court decision clearly stated, firing an employee for homosexuality is not prohibited.

            When you bring someone to court, you have to PROVE your allegations, Michael. Allegations never proved are not “clear-cut, indisputable examples” of discrimination, Michael. Take care.

          • Michael C

            If I called the police and alleged that my neighbor drives a Ford Fiesta, do you think the police would come out to investigate my claims? Do you think they would want proof?

            If I filed a lawsuit against my neighbor for driving a Ford Fiesta, do you think the court would ask me to prove my claims?

            The answer is no and no. Owning a Ford Fiesta isn’t a crime so there would be no investigation and it wouldn’t matter even if I could prove beyond reasonable doubt that my neighbor does in fact drive a Ford Fiesta.

            Neither the federal government nor the majority of states prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, making it 100% legal for businesses to refuse employment, housing, and public accommodations to gay men and women.

          • Reason2012

            If I called the police and alleged that my neighbor drives a Ford Fiesta, do you think the police would come out to investigate my claims? Do you think they would want proof?

            (1) Driving your own car is not a crime.
            (2) It’s trivial to verify what type of car you have
            (3) If you accuse someone of a crime, yes, in America, you need this thing called “proof”, not what the left does: which is simply make up the accusation and you are automatically guilty.

            Comparing accusing someone of a crime to reporting to the police what type of car your neighbor owns and drives, and then using at as some justification that police “do not want proof” when you accuse someone of an crime / violation of the law.

            Wow. Just, wow.

            You are an even bigger deceiver than I thought, Michael. Thank you for showing everyone else. Take care.

          • Michael C

            Driving a Ford Fiesta is not a crime. In a majority of the US, neither is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

            If you accuse your neighbor of committing the “crime” of driving a Ford Fiesta, the cops and courts will ignore you because it’s not actually a crime. They won’t ask you to prove it because it doesn’t matter even if it’s true.

            If you accuse a business of committing the “crime” of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in one of the majority of states that don’t actually prohibit it, the cops and courts will ignore you because it’s not actually a crime. They won’t ask you to prove it because it doesn’t matter even if it’s true.

            According to the federal government and the majority of states, it is just as legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people as it is to drive a Ford Fiesta.

  • SFBruce

    For those of us who support LGBT equality, this is disappointing; however, it’s important to note that SCOTUS isn’t saying they think this Mississippi law is fine with the constitution, although this action clearly leaves the Fifth Circuit’s decision in place. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit didn’t address the merits of the case; rather, they dismissed on the basis of standing. That is, since those who brought the case haven’t actually been harmed, they have no basis for the lawsuit. Despite ADF’s claim to the contrary, that may change.

  • Lydia Church

    Things are going to get crazy. Persecution against us, and discrimination AGAINST US as Christians is going to get worse. But…. WE WILL NOT COMPLY. We REFUSE. We obey God and disobey man if their laws contradict. That is what we live by, no matter what. As the early Christians went to the lions for refusing, so do we. They were hauled off and had all sorts of things done to them because they refused to sacrifice to pagan gods. Well, we refuse to sacrifice to anything or anyone else but the God of the Bible. No matter what they decide when they put their pretty little heads together in fancy robes or anything else like that. It is that simple.

    • Michael C

      Discrimination based on a person’s religion is prohibited by law in Mississippi (and everywhere else in the US).

      Discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation is totally legal in Mississippi (and most of the rest of the US).

      • Jon Staples

        Actually, it’s federal law that protects religion.

        And that’s how these lunatics want it… they wish to have and keep the same protections they wish to keep from others.

        That will be their undoing.

  • Reason2012

    Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to use his business support the anti-black acts like a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering or a “proKKK” gathering? Would a black printer who has no problem serving white people have to make printings to support anti-black act, like a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering? Does a mulsim baker who has no problem selling cakes to non-mulsim people have to use his business support the anti-muslim acts like a “lets draw muhammad” party?

    No. Those requests would be denied for 100% of their customers even if asked by another black person or another muslim.

    The only bigots in such a case are those who sought this black baker or black printer out to support this ACT. And so it goes with homosexual activists who seek out Christian bakers and Christian business owners to force them to support such anti-Christian acts no matter if it’s a homosexual who makes the request or not, whether a Christian makes the request or not, more so when such people have no problem serving those who declare they’re into homosexuality. 100% of their customers would be denied this request. They’d also be denied a request for a polygamous wedding cake.

    America is waking up to the deception from homosexual activists, and cases like this make it more obvious and make people more aware of what the real motive is of same-gender marriage and transgender bathrooms is: the offshoot criminalization of those who do not support these ACTS.

    And keep in mind, these same homosexual activists hate LGBT people. When 50 of them were_killed in Orlando, these same activists jumped to the defense of_islam as the “religion of peace”, while not saying a word to defend those who were_killed, but instead keep going after those “evil” Christians for not violating their Christian faith and perform anti-Christian acts.

    Keep in mind they are anti-Christian activists, not LGBT people in general, but activists that have proven they hate LGBT people and are just using them to push this anti-Christian agenda. The anti-Christian activists calls it “equality” that they can force their bigotry against Christians and shut them down even though they have no problem serving those into homosexuality.

  • Reason2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Even Jesus points out marriage is a man and a woman.

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

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

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

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

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • Jon Staples

      Copypasta…

      This guy cannot have an original thought.

  • Reason2012

    America is waking up to the true motives of “LGBT activists”: fascist attack on Christians and Christianity, forcing them to support anti-Christian acts with their business or be shut down even though they have no problem serving those into homosexuality but are simply denying the request from 100% of people who ever ask to support anti-Christian acts with their businesses.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      ACCEPTANCE WITHOUT EXCEPTION …. that is their only interest ……….

    • Jon Staples

      Oh, you poor dear…

      This was just a setback… you didn’t win anything, as there was no decision based on merit.

      Oh, whatever will you do when it’s back in court?

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Facebook Takes Down ‘Warriors for Christ’ Page Citing Policy on Bullying, Hate Speech
    Share On Facebook Share On Twitter
    By Samuel Smith , CP Reporter | Jan 9, 2018 7:05 AM

    FACEBOOK KILLS POPULAR CHRISTIAN PAGE FOR ‘BULLYING,’ ‘HATE SPEECH’

    ‘We Can’t Even Use The Term ‘LGBT’ In Any Context Whatsoever Or Else It Immediately Gets Flagged And Banned’

    • LynnRH

      I say we should boycott Facebook!

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        hard to boycott what you never were part of ……….

  • Status Cymbals

    I don’t think the Founders intended that nine people – actually, just five are needed to settle a case – would wield such power over millions of Americans.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    “We are completely and totally tolerant of everyone (as long as they agree with us) …..”
    ~Anonymous LGBT activist

    • Jon Staples

      You don’t have to agree with anything… but we will be treated the same as you are by our government and in our laws.

      Why is that an issue?

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        they WERE treated the same ….. and it was not good enough ….. so that is a LIE …………

        • Jon Staples

          How are we treated differently now other than the fact that those who choose to follow mythology get the special rights that others don’t get?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            false paradigm …. false presumptions …… there were no special rights …. that is what we have now ……….

          • Jon Staples

            Yet you can’t point to one.

            How fascinating…

          • Jon Staples

            Still… you have shown exactly zero special rights.

            I can show where those who choose to follow mythology get special rights… can you show where gay people get special rights?

            So far, you’ve only failed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no …. i have …. you reject it ….. SO WHAT …………..

          • Jon Staples

            You haven’t provided anything but “faith”… that’s not fact.

            You got nothing, like all methodologically brainwashed idiots.

          • Jon Staples

            Oh, and you show zero special rights.

            You can’t.

            So I have nothing to reject.

            Poor whiny little snowflake.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so more name calling ….. TOS violation ………….

          • Jon Staples

            What name calling, toots?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Poor whiny little snowflake.” ………. toots ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            redefining the language to suit your depravity …………. that special right ……….

  • Jon Staples

    LOL… this is not a “win” for “conservatives”.

    The case wasn’t heard based on standing… it was neither unheard or judged based on merit.

    It’ll be back… there’s no rational reason to allow it to stand considering those who choose to follow religion receive the very accommodations protections they wish to keep from gay people.

    Just a matter of time.

    • Eric L

      Here’s a hanky to wipe your tears.

      • Jon Staples

        What tears?

        As stated, this is not the end… someone with standing will step forward, and the outcome will be completely different.

  • Reason2012

    The LGBT activists (who are really pro-islam activists in disguise) really mean if they cannot force Christians to support homosexual acts with their businesses, cannot sue them for hundreds of thousands of dollars, cannot shut down their businesses and more, even though they have no problem serving LGBT, then this is supposedly discrimination against LGBT. The LGBT activists (who actually hate LGBT, since they remained silent about 50 LGBT slaughtered in Orlando, but rushed to defend islam as the religion of peace – proving they’re pro-islam activists posing as LGBT defenders) make it quite clear that fascist censorship and criminalization and eradication of Christianity is their real goal. Nice to see a judge who can see that.