More Christian persecution: Idaho city forces pastors to marry gays

When I think of Idaho, two things come to mind: potatoes and the blue football field at Boise State. But now I have a new perception of Idaho. You might recall the recent nefarious actions of Houston’s Mayor Annise Parker — who is gay — and her subpoena brought against five Houston pastors demanding they submit their sermons, church bulletins, and other correspondence. I’m afraid the assault on the free exercise of religion – specifically Christian – continues, this time in Idaho.

As reported by the Washington Times, “Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines. The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller reported.”

As a result of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, the Times says “a federal judge recently ruled that the Idaho’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, while the city of Coeur d‘Alene has an ordinance that prevents discrimination based on sexual preference. The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to take on gay rights’ appeals from five states has opened the doors for same-sex marriages to go forth.”

I just have to ask a simple question — how is it that the 14th Amendment of equal protection under the law is extended to include behavioral choices? Yep, I hear all the progressive socialist and radical gay agenda groups just fuming, but I’m asking a serious question. Sexuality is a behavior, not a race, nor a creed, not a gender — albeit in the war of refining language that is the goal — how do you make law regarding behavior? How does behavior become a protected class? Don’t give me the ol’ states used to have bans on interracial marriage argument because that’s not a valid comparison — that involved discrimination based upon race.

How does an entire country give preferences to a group — a small but vocal minority — based upon the choice of sexuality? It is rather hard for me to change my race, but if gay people decide to be bisexual, then do they receive different equal protections under the law? Or what happens if a gay person decides to be heterosexual — what gay rights do they lose and how are they unequally protected under the law?

I’m not trying to be obtuse or belligerent — these are valid constitutional questions. Yep, we all have the pursuit of happiness and if your pursuit then violates the defined Constitutional rights of another — what are their equal protections under the law?

Case in point, the Knapps were just asked by a gay couple to perform their wedding ceremony, as The Daily Caller reports, “and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”

So let me understand, the equal protection under the law, based on sexuality choice overrides the equal protection under the law and the First Amendment rights of another — freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof? Am I the only one who sees the blatant hypocrisy of this as a horrific policy and truly the federal judge violating the basis of federalism?

Not only have the rights of the State of Idaho been dismissed — but also individuals’ right to the free exercise of their religion. We’ve seen this in New Mexico with a young couple’s photography studio and a couple in Oregon who had a bakery — in both cases they did not want to support a gay marriage as per their First Amendment right — and they were crushed by the radical gay agenda and the state.

It seems to me what is occurring in America is the redefinition of the word tolerance. To the progressive socialist Left, secular humanists, and Islamo-fascists, tolerance is a one-way street. My way, or the highway. And as I’ve said over and over, that leads to cultural suicide.

What is happening in America folks? The Mayor of Houston, the fourth largest city in America, subpoenas pastors to surrender their sermons or face penalty. The city of Couer d’Alene, Idaho has passed an ordinance forcing the marriage of gays or else face a jail sentence and $1000 per day fine. Is this still America, a country of religious freedom, or only freedom for religions that meet certain litmus tests?

I find it unconscionable that Islamic mosques and centers can preach and proselytize messages to undermine our America — including death to homosexuals — but hey, that’s accepted and tolerated.

I can attest to one thing: never has there been a time when Christian pastors have seen such persecution, leading to their unification. I believe progressive socialists and their radical gay agenda cohorts have awakened a sleeping giant — and not just the rocks will cry out.

I think it’s time for America to realize that behavioral choices are privileges — not rights. And the incessant redefinition of everything as a right is just more identity politics — not good policy.

Leave a Reply

324 Comments on "More Christian persecution: Idaho city forces pastors to marry gays"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sparky_Wan_Kenobi
Guest

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . “

JoeMyGod
Guest

The owners of the Hitching Post have admitted that the entire story is a lie.

Read the story from the Coeur D’Arlene Press: http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html

Honu425
Guest

I’m getting really confused by this story. What’s the straight of it? It’s interesting that Allen West picked it up from the Washington Times, and I did read the article you linked above. In my reading of the above link, I begin to think something akin to the “Chinese Telephone” from grade school is happening; every agency that picks up the story embellishes it a little more and finally you get what? Misplaced outrage most likely. The pastor states he doesn’t know ADF. ADF filed the lawsuit. What’s going on here?

JoeMyGod
Guest

Here’s what is really going on here. In the last two weeks 13 states have legalized same-sex marriage, bringing the total (including Wyoming, today) to 32 states. Only 21 states currently have statewide anti-discrimination laws that include gay Americans in their protections, which means that in many states gay people can now be legally married AND be legally fired from their job or turned away by businesses. The ADF suit is a “warning shot” to other municipalities that are considering laws like the one in this small Idaho town. Hence the hysteria and the outright lies.

dghealy
Guest

thank you. there is a lot of crap on line. you have to search for the truth. this site, Allen West is one of the most reliable.

JoeMyGod
Guest

But don’t hold your breath for Allen West to update his post with the truth about this situation.

dghealy
Guest

He has done so before,.nonetheless. most dont apologize.

JoeMyGod
Guest

I’ve not seen him do that, but good for him if that’s so.

SGT Scientist
Guest

I notice that the perverts only try to force Christians to engage in their “same sex marriage” ceremonies by forcing them to take photos or bake cakes, etc. Why don’t the pansies and carpet munchers force Muslims to bake their cakes and take their pictures? Could it be that they are, like all bullies, simply cowards?

RedStateJoe
Guest

Probably because no Muslim who is in the business of marrying people in a city that has an anti-discrimination ordinance has refused to marry homosexuals.

Ever hear of apples and oranges. Scientist – what a joke.

SGT Scientist
Guest

You obviously know nothing about Islam.

RedStateJoe
Guest

Don’t just spit the dummy, offer proof that I am wrong. You’re the self-identified scientist, you do understand proof, yes?

JoeMyGod
Guest

Because Muslims only make up 0.8% of the population. There are hundreds of thousands of Christian-owned businesses and only five have ever been fined under anti-discrimination laws. At that rate, the law of averages suggests that it will be thousands of years before a Muslim-owned business is involved in one of these situations.

Johnson.s
Guest

@Wihite My last pay <-check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour's sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out..

——————————————————————
Going on
Here ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­I ­­­­­­­­­started—– http://GembaWorks96$$……
>>>>>–>->>>
—–­­­­————-­­­­————–­­­­———————­­­­————-

{take a look at any link in this}

majorwiblit
Guest

Poor west, (Guardian of the Hot Chocolate Vending Machine), now you can add
gay marriage to your wistful thoughts of Idaho…..

Heather Frey Blanton
Guest

I write Christian fiction. Based on this story and the bakery’s ordeal, I find myself wondering when will someone tell me I have to include a gay theme in my romances? A love story is the product I sell. It’s not really any different than a cake. You buy it for enjoyment. And what if I don’t comply? Will Amazon shut me down? I am so sick of the “tolerant” gay mafia.

RedStateJoe
Guest

No, you just can’t go into this city and try to sell you books only to non-gay people.

I think you know that, you just wanted to be a dick and complain about something that would never happen. You must be a delight at a dinner party.

Dennis Schmidt
Guest

File a civil suit against the state, even a threat of arrest or a fine is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment! better still get arrested then file a suit for false arrest / detention, ect. too!

JoeMyGod
Guest

There has been no arrest threat or even a complaint filed in this Idaho town. It’s all a lie. See the story linked below.

Dennis Schmidt
Guest

which would sort of be my point, if this is actually happening why is it not seen in any of the other news sources?? and why has no civil suit been filed?? I wouldn’t put up with this for 1 second..who would??

JoeMyGod
Guest

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws, most recently in May 2014 when it rejected the appeal of a New Mexico wedding photographer.

Dennis Schmidt
Guest

Right..and a photographer is not a minister, nor is a cake maker. although they should be able to refuse services based on their religious beliefs. that is 100% what the 1st amendment is supposed to protect.

jyearsley
Guest

and it doesn’t sound like these two business people are either….

JoeMyGod
Guest

The right to reject customers based on religious beliefs ended half a century ago with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

RedStateJoe
Guest
Oy, so much wrong in what West writes. 1) Sexuality is an immutable personal characteristic, just like race. Interesting, creed and religion are real choices, but no reasonable person would challenge they deserve protection. That’s right, everyone can choose to be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, whatever, and only the most despicable of Americans would suggest that bias and discrimination based on religion should be permitted. Sexuality is immutable. It gets 14th Amendment protection. If you need a Table of Authorities for this, just let me know. 2) The Knapps are in the business of Weddings. They own a marriage chapel. It’s… Read more »
madlyncole
Guest

Are you from Coeur d’Alene?? I have read and watched news reports and Allen West is not lying. If your religion frowns upon same sex marriage you should not be compelled to marry them. On the other hand, if you own a bakery, and refuse to bake a cake, that, in my opinion is wrong. Customer service is something that is slowly dwindling in our society. Courtesy and respect are as well. If a preacher courteously refuses to marry a same sex couple on the grounds of religious reasons, they have that right.

RedStateJoe
Guest

Did you follow the link? West lied to you – the Knapps aren’t being arrested, sued or even threatened with either.

Further, this chapel is more like a bakery than a church. It’s a for-profit business that wants to turn people away based on their sexual orientation.

George Loder
Guest

RSJ: The Knapps are waiting court action and at this time facing legal charges and fines which are now pending. They are ordained (according to all info presented) and would be performing a religious ceremony no matter what the actual location. The main difference here is that the LAW (State) and the CHURCH both see marriage as a union; the LAW sees it as a contract only, the CHURCH (represented by the Knapps) see it also as a sacrament of the CHURCH which is protected by the LAW’s own rules and regulations.

RedStateJoe
Guest

No, they are not. You’re simply wrong. No one has done a dang thing against them. Period.

They are a for-profit business. They have sued the City. They are the plaintiff in this action.

Read that again: they are a for-profit business.

No Christians are being persecuted in this story.

Len Montgomery
Guest

Just a question. Has anyone checked to see if this chapel operates under the IRS status as a 501C3? If it does, then it is most definitely a church and not a for profit bakery!! You know what they say about assumptions!

RedStateJoe
Guest

They are not a religious institution. If they were, this wouldn’t be an issue as the ordinance has a exception for those.

” Wilson clarified that religious entities are exempt under the city ordinance, but apparently told Mr. Knapp at the time that the Hitching Post was not exempt because it is a business, not a religious corporation like a church.”

West hid that bit of information from you. West lies like that a lot, huh!

Javier Smith
Guest

When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation.” from http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html

T Miller
Guest
The idea that gay marriage has mostly become legal is not enough. Christians are also being forced to proclaim that the Creator, God of the Bible, has ordained that it’s good and blessed which clearly is no more true than gluttony, adultery, laziness, or any other sin being blessed by God. Why do they care so much to insist God accept the deviant acts of that lifestyle? Does it really matter? You don’t see the LBGT asking any other faith to accept and perform this kind of ceremony against their doctrine. In terms of legality, if this chapel does not… Read more »
Paul Sheridan
Guest

Do they have an interracial wedding package? Do they have one for Jews marrying Baptists? Or do they just call those “weddings?” It must be a heck of a menu if they’re forced to list all the different types of weddings there can be.

Father Jack
Guest

Homosexuality is not a behavioural choice. People don’t choose to be straight or gay. No one chooses their sexuality. It is what it is.

Lawrence
Guest

They are not born like that sin is sin and they need to repent while thete is still time jesus christ is coming back sone

Elliot Grove
Guest

What demonstrable evidence indicates that jesus exists and is coming back soon?

Guest
Guest

U r kidding Right. Just like some of your colleagues also have “No Other Choice” but to molest young boys??? I bet that would your defense huh? Idiot..

Frank Schoner
Guest

Would you argue the same for pedophilia and bestiality? People that engage in such also claim it is not their choice.

Father Jack
Guest

The slippery slope argument does not wash: the answer lies in the ability of both parties to consent.

Javier Smith
Guest

If children and animals could give legal consent to sexual activity, then yes. Since they cannot, then no.

Jeff Knowlton
Guest

It’s a free country. If a pastor doesn’t want to marry them, that’s his choice. They can then go ask someone else to perform the ceremony.

If an overweight, unattractive woman has designs on me I have the right to say I’m not interested. That’s my choice. Should I then get in trouble for fat discrimination?

Robert Mission
Guest

Whats next maybe activists demanding rights to marry your “Pet”?

Javier Smith
Guest

If pets can give legal consent, then sure.

Matthew Thompson
Guest

“never has there been a time when Christian pastors have seen such persecution” you might want to read up on your early Christian history.

jyearsley
Guest
Colonel, you and I are on the same page on most things –but here you are falling for a fallacy. There are legitimate questions to be asked here. I say this as a Christian Minister of Word and Sacrament, seminary educated and holding ordination in a mainline protestant denomination. I also speak as one who will not preform a wedding ceremony within the church for any same sex couple. What they are trying to create with these sham marriages is counter to God’s creative order and runs against scripture and 2000+ years of Christian Tradition. HOWEVER, these two people presenting… Read more »
Len Montgomery
Guest
jyearsley, I am not ordained, although I studied at ORU and hold a leadership position in my church. I am not going to be called on to perform a ceremony. But I am a photographer and have shot weddings. I would not accept a job shooting a same sex wedding because of my religious beliefs. Using my business to draw an analogy, based on the position you expressed above, I do not have the right to turn that work away. I must provide services to everyone! Why? Sexual orientation does not fall under the protected classes federal laws. I have… Read more »
jyearsley
Guest

Sorry Len, but I do not see any problem with the questions I asked about Mr. and Mrs. Knapp’s credentials. Calling oneself a “minister” is easy. Being a pastor, not so much. If this is the position these folks want to take, let them plant a church,lead worship, proclaim the gospel and in short, be the church — not operate a commercial wedding chapel masquerading as such.

As to your memories, well civil laws and judicial decisions change – perhaps public accommodation law has changed.

Javier Smith
Guest
I believe you and I are in agreement that EOE and discrimination laws are awful but for different reasons. To me, they are evidence that, without restraint, the worst in us will manifest itself in ugly ways. If people were truly respectful they would not refuse service to folks because they were Irish, white, Protestant, straight, Republican, handicapped, male, etc. but, as we have bitterly learned – we do. These laws are the direct result of folks actively discriminating against others and denying them the right to basic care, food, medicine, shelter, and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.… Read more »
Len Montgomery
Guest
I am sorry, but we are not in agreement. These laws are not awful, only the fact that they are needed is awful. I would never want to see someone refuse service of any kind based on that person being “fill in the blank.” But I don’t see this as one of those scenarios. This couple is attempting to establish a precedent that a Christian may opt out of “participation” in a service that is against their religious beliefs. Should the baker bake the cake? Yes. Should they be forced to serve it too? NO!! Should a photographer be required… Read more »
Javier Smith
Guest
First off, no one is saying the pastor has to participate – the city is not making any legal threats. However, if he runs a for-profit business then he cannot discriminate. He can find someone else to perform the ceremony for him if he doesn’t want to do it himself, but his business cannot refuse based solely on the sexual orientation of his customers. In both the cases of the bakery and the photographer, they could have both declined to do the job , referred the work to someone else or subcontracted out to someone else and said nothing, but… Read more »
Len Montgomery
Guest
Javier, you are obviously not a business owner. If you were, you would understand that small business (like my own) often operate with one employee…the owner! Having another fill in is not an option for me. Either I do it or it doesn’t get done. Even so, if they pass on the work to an employee or sub-contractor, they may as well just threw out their beliefs and performed themselves. What you would have them do though is the most immoral and hypocritical thing of all…LIE! You would have them say it was for any other reason, or withhold a… Read more »
Elliot Grove
Guest

Can I open a restaurant, and ban all evangelicals from it?

Len Montgomery
Guest

Do you have a valid religious conviction that would prompt you to do so?

You must understand that a person choosing not to participate in a same sex ceremony is doing so based on their their relationship with God, not the circumstances of the same sex couple or their desire to have a relationship. I am not personally impacted by their ceremony taking place. By participating in the ceremony in any way, I am impacted spiritually.

Elliot Grove
Guest

Define “religious conviction”.
Can a muslim ban all christians, or a christian ban muslims?
Or can you put up a sign banning jews, or black people, or midgets?

Len Montgomery
Guest
Javier, you obviously are not a business owner. Simply finding someone else to perform a service is not always an option for the small business owner. I own two businesses, both of which I am the only person on staff. Either I do it, or it doesn’t get done. And as a for profit business, I fire clients. All business owners do! Thinking otherwise shows gullibility! But you however, have shown your cowardice and the worst kind of hypocrisy of all. You would have them lie about the reason that they declined to participate. Someone is going to ask because… Read more »
msmith40
Guest

The most frustrating term: ‘Gay-marriage’.
It is not ‘gay-marriage’.
It is ‘same-sex marriage’.
Gays CAN get married in this country.
A gay man is free to marry a woman.
A gay woman is free to marry a man.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

Nobody likes a semantic argument.

Leonard Haga
Guest

Call what it is, homosexual.

Potato
Guest

Although I believe that Christian persecution and bullying is alive an thriving, especially on the Internet, I don’t see this as a religious issue at all. A business has a first amendment right to refuse to do business with whomever it chooses. It’s no different than women-only gyms, or party organizers that specialize in children’s only parties, it is their right to decide what customer they choose to do business with.

Peter Gorman
Guest

A for-profit business was pretending to be a religious institution in order to try to preemptively avoid gay couples. The article above is misleading and wrong. Here is the original article, which still has the nitty gritties the above article conveniently forgot:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/19/idaho-city-to-christian-pastors-preform-same-sex-weddings-or-face-jail/

Amy Owen
Guest

But istand by my first comment….. it is against the pastors freedom of religion and after reading your post….. against freedom of speech as well….

Peter Gorman
Guest
Yes. Certain religious practices and speech can be regulated in the commercial setting. Such regulation receives a very harsh scrutiny by courts because of how important both are. If a person of strong religious ideals runs a store, they may not throw out customers for merely being who they are. This is an extension of race cases where southern restaurant owners would throw out african americans. While some may debate how inherent “being gay” is to a person’s identity, religious affiliation itself is considered an inherent and thus protectable status even though people can and do change religions all the… Read more »
Amy Owen
Guest

I see thank you peter!

Len Montgomery
Guest

I don’t see how the article is misleading at all based on the article you referenced. They both plainly state the two are ordained pastors who base their decision to oppose performing the ceremonies of gay marriages on their religious beliefs.

Peter Gorman
Guest

There is a difference between practicing one’s beliefs in a religious setting and selling one’s beliefs in a commercial setting. The constitution protects the first one but not the second one. If commercial sellers of religious services don’t like it, they can shut down their business. One can privately believe whatever one wants, but the US is all about making the customers feel comfortable, capitalism!

George Loder
Guest

Peter; you would be right if the persons performing the union were acting under the aspects of civil employees. However, being ordained ministers, makes the union a religious matter, regardless where it is performed. The law sees a “Marriage” as a contract between two persons. The “Church” sees it as a sacrament performed by the union of a man and a woman. Equal rights “under the law” are not being violated by the ministers, who represent the “Church” in this case.no matter where the service was to take place)

Len Montgomery
Guest
Where in the constitution does it say that a privately held business cannot choose to not do business with whomever they choose? The only laws I am aware of are the Federal Fair Housing Act that protects seven specific classes: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. I am not aware of any law that states a barber MUST cut PINK hair. They have the right to NOT cut PINK hair. An airline has the right to refuse to let a person fly for purposes only they know. And even the Red Cross can turn you away… Read more »
Peter Gorman
Guest

There is an ongoing debate about whether sexual orientation is a protectable status similar to race, religion, etc. The tenor of this Idaho decision lends some credence to the idea that sexual orientation will take it’s place up there with the rest, but who knows.

Len Montgomery
Guest

But that debate has yet to be settled and as of this time is NOT part of the law. Even if it is added, these protected classes ONLY apply to fair housing! Whether or not sexual orientation is added or not, the National Association of REALTORS (of which I am an active member) has already adopted it under our policy of discrimination. Why would would we do this as an organization if it was already covered under the law? We wouldn’t.

Javier Smith
Guest

Not just fair housing, but to employment and to any public service in some places. This is to prevent folks from opening a ‘whites only’ restaurant, a ‘No Jews’ hair salon, refusing to sell to anyone just because they are a Republican, Muslim or Irish, etc.

The intent is to create a society where everyone has equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Peter Gorman
Guest

Javier’s got it. It’s enforceable under the interstate commerce clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, though most courts cite the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause when discouraging discriminatory practices.

Amy Owen
Guest

This has nothing to do with my opinion on gar marriage im not stating if i am agains it or not…. but ……. This goes against freedom of religion… the pastor has rights too

Javier Smith
Guest

If this was a church or other not-for-profit, then yes. But since it is a business, then no. And FYI, most of their claims are completely made up. The city has received no complaints and is not threatening them with arrest or fines. In fact, the Hitching Post is suing the city, not the other way around.

Len Montgomery
Guest

Since you are making a definitive statement about this not being a church or non-profit, I assume you have personal, first hand knowledge of whether they hold an IRS 501C3 status. Oh you don’t?

Javier Smith
Guest

“When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation.” from http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html

CheetoBuster
Guest

This is why it is so important to take control of the Senate. If you must, plug your nose and vote for the Rino, sure beats what the democrats have in store for us.

cuetip
Guest

Sad thing about America. Every thing is a direct result of what is voted for. This is what happens when the Idiots elect leaders with no morals. So if you voted for the DemocRAT. You are to blame.

Len Montgomery
Guest

Not everything. North Carolina voted NOT to acknowledge same sex marriages two years ago. And yet today…!

Javier Smith
Guest

Human rights should never be put to a vote. If they are, then that is the job of the courts to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

calvin
Guest

I sure wish the courts would indeed protect the minority in these cases. That minority would be the Christians, BTW

Javier Smith
Guest

Not being allowed to use your religious beliefs as a shield to discriminate against others is not the definition of being a minority.

George Loder
Guest
“As reported by the Washington Times, “Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines. The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller reported.” As per the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, the governing officials cannot dictate any religious event to be practiced by the… Read more »
Jim Bales
Guest

As noted by Javier Smith in a comment above, “The Hitching Post” has been a for-profit business, not a church.

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html

“When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation.”

Best
Jim Bales

Javier Smith
Guest

The city has not received any complaints nor have they made any threats of arrests or fines. In fact the Hitching Post is on the one suing the city not the other way around.
http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html

elle
Guest
It’s preemptive and includes a temporary restraining order to stop the city from arrests/fines/enforcement. 6Oct they filed with the state LLC indicating a designation as “religious organization” and until they receive that change officially they would be/are breaking the city ordinance. Apparently they were happy to be designated as for profit and pay their taxes to the city and state as they have been for nearly 30 years. Absent an exemption in the city ordinance for religious for profit businesses, the only way to remedy the situation is to file suit until their designation is changed and they gain exemption.… Read more »
Mark Brown
Guest

Mr. West, the Knapps run a for-profit business providing marriage ceremonies. Their business in Couer d”Alene is just the same as all of the wedding chapels throughout Nevada. IT IS A BUSINESS, FOR PROFIT! As a for-profit business they do not qualify for the non-profit religious exemption. Their firmly held religious beliefs can be maintained in church weddings. As a business the new law prohibits them from discrimination of any form.

Debbrisean Fowler
Guest

Yes, the Hitching Post is a business, but the point remains: why should the owner of a business be forced to violate their religious beliefs?

Reasonoverhate
Guest

Should a Muslim be able to turn away a jew? Should a Hindu be able to turn away a Christian? Should we be able to turn away people of color? The Civil Rights Act has been in place for 50 years now. In the public square everyone must be treated equally. SCOTUS has so far agreed with anti-discrimination laws as well. If your business is open to the public then you must serve the public equally.

Ian Newton
Guest

Why is this even a question. If a religious organization (profit or not) doesn’t want to marry someone based on sexual preference then they shouldn’t have to. Like the article says sexual preference is a choice. Not something your born with. There for no law should ever dictate a business’s compliance with a persons set of choices.

Elliot Grove
Guest

When did you choose to be straight?
Try “choosing” to be gay for a month.
See how that goes.

Len Montgomery
Guest

Once again I state, since you are making a definitive statement about this not being a
church or non-profit, I assume you have personal, first hand knowledge
of whether they hold an IRS 501C3 status. Oh you don’t?

Javier Smith
Guest

“When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation.” from http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html

Jim Bales
Guest
Following Javier Smith’s link, we find: ‘[O]n Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a “religious organization.” He [Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Mike Gridley] told the Knapps’ attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are “truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation” they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance.’ There is no story here, folks. The Knapps were running their chapel on a for-profit basis (in which case, as a business, they have to follow the non-discrimination laws), but on Oct. 6, 2014, decided to be a… Read more »
calvin
Guest

key wording, “the new law” ….where did this become a new law?…. it was just special rights given to a select few as I see it

Javier Smith
Guest

You misread it then. It is equal rights for all sexual orientations.

Gail van Alphen
Guest
My husband be I had a very difficult time finding a church to marry us. Problem, I was raised Catholic, he was raised in the reformed church. How has it come to forcing ministers to go against their beliefs? I’m really scared for the religious freedoms we have always been assured of in this country. I don’t believe our justice system can be trusted to interpret our constitution anymore.Everything has become so corrupt. No one has a bbackbone and our hands are tied to protect ourselves from political bullies. We need a good housecleaning, both democrats and Republicans, let them… Read more »
RedStateJoe
Guest

Religious organizations aren’t covered by the ordinance. No church and no pastor is forced to do anything. These people aren’t even pastors, they are ordained ministers who work in a FOR-BUSINESS enterprise.

No one has threatened them with anything. They are the ones filing suit.

West lied to you.

Lawrence
Guest

Jesus help you guys you are headed for hell and dont even no it repent while theres still time

Elliot Grove
Guest

Please explain how you know this is going to happen.

Dawn Salzillo
Guest

Change
your mind and God will change your heart! Many spiritual things are spiritually
discerned.

Elliot Grove
Guest

My mind is based on evidence, reason, and what is demonstrable. If you want to convince me, saying “change your mind” is a really bad way to do it.

Give proof/evidence for your god that doesn’t also prove/demonstrate allah.

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

Check out Jesus’ words “A new Covenant I give you…” In all the years I have read the Bible, I have never seen anything about Jihad…smhlol.

Elliot Grove
Guest

I have no good reason to believe jesus even existed. You’re confusing the message with why I should believe it.

Jihad is wrong. But then again, so is wanting to put gays to death, and christian pastors have been caught preaching that too. But they both have one thing in common: No good evidence to support their belief.

The same way you think islam is wrong, I think about you and them both.

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe
The Bible I read does not preach killing gays, and what proof do you have that Christian Pastors are telling their congregations to go kill gays. Not even possible if they truly preach the WORD. Try reading Hebrews 4:12 and Proverbs 30:5…or join a Bible class to find answers to the questions you clearly have. You can also choose to live in ignorance. “I AM”, said Jesus, and that is good enough for me. “FAITH cometh by hearing, and HEARING by the WORD.” Romans 10:17. Read also Matthew 17:20. Elliot my salvation is not in question, it is assured through… Read more »
Elliot Grove
Guest
Deuternoomy 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. So deuteronomy tells us to… Read more »
Paul Sheridan
Guest

Leviticus 18:22

Javier Smith
Guest

No one is forcing any ministers to do anything against their beliefs. The claims made here are completely false. HOWEVER, if they run a for-profit business THEN they would be subject to the law. If they run a not-for-profit/church then they would be exempt.

Braveheart
Guest

Then there would be no problem if they quit that job.

Braveheart
Guest

So…a government entity is telling a church what to do regarding a religious ceremony (yes, if they want a member of clergy to perform the wedding, it is a religious ceremony because their is a secular option known as the Justice of the Peace). Thus, the gloves are off. We can now have teacher directed prayers in school again.

Javier Smith
Guest

No. The city of Coeur d’Alene is doing nothing of the sort. They have received no complaints and made no threats of arrests or fines toward the Hitching Post. Also the Hitching Post is not a church or non-profit but a for-profit business.

Braveheart
Guest

However, they have a rotating clergy that performs weddings like most wedding chapels. Since they are clergy, they cannot be legally ordered to perform weddings that are against their religion. I presume the place can bring in a non-clergy person authorized to perform weddings by the state.

info warrior
Guest

Face it, religion is the oldest scam in the book.

Lawrence
Guest

Ephesians chaper 5 verse 5 for this you know that no whoremonger nor unclean persons nor covetous man who is an idolator hath any inheritance in the kingdom of christ and of god

Elliot Grove
Guest

“One day the older daughter said to the younger, ‘Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.'” — Genesis 19:31-38

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

Elliot it may help you to know that when the OT was written it was meant for the Jewish nation. The New Testament was written as the New Covenant. Joseph Prince has explained this all very well. I highly recommend him!

Len Montgomery
Guest

The rest of that story is that, because of this type of deviant sexual behavior, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah along with Lot’s wife because they refused to repent and turn away from sin. Don’t try to use God’s word against God!

Elliot Grove
Guest

Yep. So god let them do it and didn’t punish the girls.
Not my fault the bible is full of immorality and makes no sense.

I mean, the bible clearly condones and gives the rules for slavery. That alone tells me it should never be relied on for any kind of guidance.

stephaniejane81
Guest

I’m pretty sure God freed the Israelites from slavery when they were in Egypt. Why free them if he was OK with it? Just because the bible gives an account of something that happened doesn’t mean God condoned it. Does the scripture say “and God agreed with what they did” right after the scripture you mentioned?

Dawn Salzillo
Guest

the word”SLAVE” is translated from Hebrew “bondsman”. So the
definition you use is not an argument. it has been argued for years but thanks to modern technology and access to a multitude of learning tools we can see it does not mean SLAVE as you imply.

Elliot Grove
Guest

Oh yes it does.
As in “drive a spike through their ear, keep them for ever, pass them on to your kids, sell them as property, and beat them as long as they don’t die within a day”
Re-read the old testament.

info warrior
Guest

Oh those poor, poor persecuted white Christian homophobes. loL!

stephaniejane81
Guest

please explain how disagreeing with someone means we are afraid of them. I must be afraid of everyone including my husband b/c I don’t agree with anyone 100% of the time. ah yes, America, where one segment of the population is required to be tolerant of others while the ones screaming “tolerance” are the most intolerant and hateful ones out there. I find that funny, and sad.

jyearsley
Guest

just as perhaps you are a poor hatefilled Christophobe?

Lawrence
Guest

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them you are wrong buddy jesus is getting ready to unleash a holl lot of bad on you if you dont repent

Elliot Grove
Guest

Please demonstrate how you know this is true.

Dawn Salzillo
Guest

faith in Gods words of prophecy

Elliot Grove
Guest

Faith is what stuck planes in the twin towers.
Sorry, but we need a better method of discernment than “my invisible friend told me”

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

Elliot the faith you refer to is the Islamic faith, where killing those they see as infadels is OK. Neither the Jewish nor Christians condoned 911.

Elliot Grove
Guest

No, faith is belief without evidence or good reason.
It’s not what you believe, it’s how you believe it.

You and they both come to your beliefs through the same mechanism: faith.

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

I was responding to “what stuck the planes in the towers” comment…those who follow the Koran believe in killing infidels…Moses brought down the Ten Commandments for the Jews and the Jewish Nation has the Torah, Christians have the Holy Bible. Nowhere in my Bible does God ask me to go out and kill people because their belief system does not align with mine.

Elliot Grove
Guest

Talk to a moderate muslim. They will tell you the qur’an doesn’t tell them to kill infidels either.
Religious texts have one inherent problem that makes this all wrong: They can not be edited and re-written.

Your bible is full of immoral pronouncements too. It just gets glossed over and re-spun and re-worded and explained away so people don’t feel bad. But it’s there.

ClaudeL
Guest

When you can establish that sexuality is a choice, Allen, then your questions and arguments will make sense.

When, for example, did you choose to be heterosexual? What considerations did you make before deciding?

stephaniejane81
Guest
the idea that people are born gay or bi-sexual is a lie. If you can prove it to me that there is a gay gene that determines that a boy will grow up liking men sexually then please share. I have researched this and there is such a distortion in the claim that there is a gay gene. I know of many people who were homosexual who finally admitted that they were molested or sexually abused growing up–no, that may not always be the case, but you cannot discount when something tramatic happens like that and tell me it won’t… Read more »
ClaudeL
Guest
Of course you can’t say your god made them that way; you’d be claiming knowledge you don’t possess, and therefore you’d be lying. Sexuality of all life is genetic. Allen is conflating ‘sexuality’ with ‘sexual orientation’, and he’s gone a bit further to call it a ‘preference’, which supports his false ideology that it’s a choice. Why do I call it a false ideology? Simply because he, just like all religitards, loves to claim knowledge he doesn’t possess. He’s pretending that his opinion is a fact. He’s wrong. And so are you, your irrelevant anecdote about your ‘friend’ notwithstanding. There… Read more »
stephaniejane81
Guest
If you look at the explanation of the “big bang” theory you will realize how unscientific it is. Something doesn’t come from nothing and chaos does not become more organized overtime if left to itself. Anyways, on to the rest of your response. The many factors you just mentioned make my point: there are many factors that contribute to someone’s sexual orientation–so you are in agreement that it isn’t just some gene that predisposes someone to that orientation. If you believe that it is a gene someone is born with that determines how someone feels sexually about someone else, then… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest

Something can come from nothing (although nothing in physics is not quite the same as what you probably think it is). I’d suggest reading Lawrence Krauss (physicist) after taking some basic physics classes at the college level, so you can understand his writings. There are other writings, but his would probably be easier to understand. You also don’t understand what the big bang is or how it works or how far back in time that scientists can map it.

RedStateJoe
Guest

Perhaps Mr. West is telling us that, if he so decided, he could enjoy performing fellatio. Not just do it, but find the level of satisfaction in so doing that men find with women. If it’s a choice, then he must have the ability to so decide.

However, if the thought of performing that act is revolting, and no measure of “choice” could make it anything else, then West must certainly be wrong.

Which is it West? Are you capable of performing fellatio with gusto or are you just a bigot? That’s a choice you get to make.

Julia Pierce
Guest
We do have a choice as to what sexual preference we reserve. God gave us each free will and he gave us that free will to choose to do good or evil. If God exists, then so does Satan. Deuteronomy 30:19 “Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live! He set before us a choice but told us to choose life, blessings, etc. Satan is a… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest

Considering that god endorses child murder, rape, genocide, polygamy, incest, torture… god may not be worth following. Also, ‘Satan’ in the bible is an angel that god sends out to mess with people. Even if you feel satan is something different, you’re still in the predicament that your all powerful god created satan with the full knowledge of what would happen and did it anyways.

RedStateJoe
Guest

God doesn’t make junk. Sexual orientation is immutable. You can’t change yours any more than they can.

You better get right with the lord, because you will meet him someday. The only issue is whether he invites you in.

Julia Pierce
Guest

Did you know that Job’s friends thought they had God figured out too and told Job to get right with God and God ended up rebuking Job’s friends for rebuking Job and for getting God completely wrong. I know who I serve and the Lord tells me everyday about his desires and who I am to him and the validity of my salvation. I ask does he tell you that?

And you’re right, God doesn’t make junk, but humans take what was meant to be treasure and make it junk because we don’t take care of God’s perfect creation.

RedStateJoe
Guest

It’s absolutely shameful the way you think you have God figured out, I agree.

Julia Pierce
Guest

Did you know that Job’s friends thought they had God figured out too and told Job to get right with God and God ended up rebuking Job’s friends for rebuking Job and for getting God completely wrong. I know who I serve and the Lord tells me everyday about his desires and who I am to him and the validity of my salvation. I ask does he tell you that?

Reasonoverhate
Guest

This entire “story” is a manufactured lie by the Alliance Defending Freedom. No complaint has been lodged against this business. The business owners are even on record saying they have never met or spoken to the ADF attorney. This is nothing but a right wing fringe group trying to manufacture a martyr for their discriminatory cause!

elle
Guest

They are being represented by Coeur d’Alene attorney Virginia McNulty Robinson in conjunction with ADF. He likely has not met the ADF attorney team. The lawsuit is preemptive and includes a temporary restrainer towards enforcement of the ordinance. I don’t think this is just a manufactured lie by ADF.

Reasonoverhate
Guest

Sure it’s a lie from the ADF. Right on their webpage is the headline, “Idaho to ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines”

That is patently false. No complaint has been lodged against them and no threat of jail time or fines have either. This is purely propaganda and the right wing blogosphere seems more than happy to help push it!

Debbrisean Fowler
Guest

The story says the couple faces jail time and fines for refusing to marry a gay couple, the penalty most likely found in the ordinance. It didn’t say that anyone actually filed a complaint against them. Just like saying if you run a red light, you face paying a traffic fine. Doesn’t mean a cop pulled you over.

Reasonoverhate
Guest

If there’s no complaint then there’s no possibility of jail time. It’s obvious use of propaganda to stir people up.

elle
Guest
It’s part of the city of Coeur d’Alene ordinance regarding anti-discrimination that was approved sometime in June. The Hitching Post falls into an uncomfortable place because they are a Christian focused ministry wedding chapel and are on record as for profit. Religious entities are exempt from the anti-discrimination ordinance. They have to get their designation changed or otherwise when they refuse to marry a homosexual couple they will be in violation of the ordinance. Apparently several days after the ordinance was passed a homosexual man called the Hitching Post wanting to get married. The Hitching Post declined to marry them… Read more »
Reasonoverhate
Guest

Of course they have now scrubbed from their site that they were more than happy to perform civil ceremonies before.

elle
Guest

I wouldn’t know didn’t see their site yet. Probably legal counsel said take it off. A minister would still have problems in a civil service with a same sex marriage. Remember this is about his faith, not those being wed.

Reasonoverhate
Guest

No, this is really about his business license and his ability to discriminate. As long as he’s running a for-profit business he must adhere to local anti-discrimination laws. His business is not a church. Is there some kind of in-between religious designation? I have no idea but I certainly don’t believe there should be.

elle
Guest
But the bottom line is there would be no issue absent his faith. So yes it is about his faith and his rights to it. On the immediate level of course it’s about his business license. They are changing it to not for profit, only because they have to. I am not sure if they will still be taxed or not. To look at this as his ability to discriminate is silly. It’s in his faith. It is the word of God, not his words. And he elects to follow the word of God. I think he has that right.… Read more »
Reasonoverhate
Guest

Does he marry people that he previously been divorced? Does he marry people that have had premarital hanky panky? Will he marry someone that has committed a crime? Will he marry fat people? Is there a questionnaire that people must answer before he’ll marry them? When it comes to SSM people just want to use religion to defend their discrimination. If he’s marrying other “sinners” then gays are no different, especially in a for-profit business situation.

elle
Guest
I think yes he probably would marry all the people you mentioned if they were in repentance for the sin. Besides that his evangelical Christian faith would not prohibit him from marrying someone who committed a sin. But the sin of homosexuality is very clear, and that is what the problem is. He believes in biblical marriage and that is not same sex marriage. I am not sure if there is a questionnaire lol. Same sex marriage goes against his own vows as a minister and his own Christian faith. Being forced by law to perform these marriages is actually… Read more »
elle
Guest

Well it certainly fell into a grey area of the ordinance. They are changing their status to non profit, but the federal lawsuit may go forward, ie hobby lobby and religious rights. Time will tell us. The question is a hard one: what to do when a religious belief is discriminating? Does the gov get to come in and edit the scriptures to please a specific group?

Johnson.s
Guest

@Wihite My last pay <-check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour's sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out..

—————————————————————–
Going on
Here ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­I ­­­­­­­­­started—– http://GembaWorks96$$……
>>>>>–>->>>
—–­­­­————-­­­­————–­­­­———————­­­­————-

{take a look at any link in this}

Earl Lee
Guest

More LIES from Allen (rob these loons BLIND) west to get them to donate to his fraudulent GUARDIAN FUND!!!

Lholi
Guest

Troll! What are you doing on this page? We, conservatives do not care to listen to libturds

Earl Lee
Guest

You teabillies don’t care to listen to the FACTS!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Mr. Moderate 49
Guest

We liberals think Allen West is disgusting and we have free speech just like you – So let me repeat Allen West will say anything to pad his pockets – he sells hate and Lholi you are buying it.

stephaniejane81
Guest

you can have your opinion and I respect your freedom to give it, but don’t you honestly think that Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, etc. have said some pretty outrageous, hateful things themselves? You know both sides do it, but the left always seems to get away with it more b/c the media rarely calls them out on it. Could you admit that?

jared young
Guest

Echo chamber much?

TheVIYOHD
Guest

Pink Swaztikas everywhere. Didn’t Mel Brooks do “Springtime for Hitler”?

Fujikoma
Guest

Actually, it was pink triangles and homosexuals were lined up for extermination also as the Nazi’s didn’t care for them. Paragraph 175 being the law used to arrest.

TheVIYOHD
Guest

Ernst Rohm was leader of the brownshirts

Fujikoma
Guest
Good example, but not for your point. Roehm was a gay man executed, not for being a bad person, but for being gay during a power struggle. Hitler’s military leaders didn’t care for him while Hitler was ambivalent about it. Roehm was blatant, but not flamingly blatant. Hitler’s paranoia about retaining power was the deciding factor that removed the leadership of the SA and folded it into the SS and killing other opponents of the Reich. Roehm was surprised by the whole thing when he was arrested and then later executed… The Night of the Long Knives. The Nazi base… Read more »
TheVIYOHD
Guest

Nazis were hardly christian in any sense of the word. Maybe they called themselves that. Hitler & his elite inner circle were well know (now) for being Arian cultists. Catholics as well as Lutherans were diametrically opposed to (Stein, Bohnhoffer) were murdered by the Nazis.

Fujikoma
Guest

They weren’t murdered because they were christian, they were murdered for being against the regime. You gotta be extremely dense to be that ignorant. The Catholic church supported the Nazis (it’s well documented).
If christians actually followed the rules/laws in their special little book, they wouldn’t have the support that they currently have. That’s because society has decided that religious law has no place in secular life because religious law is flawed.

TheVIYOHD
Guest
Fuckayomi, fuckorama/momma or whatever, you’re dense & ignorant Catholics did not support the Nazis. It’s well documented. There was an underground movement in the Vatican to ferret Jews out of Europe.”The Scarlet & Grey” ring a bell. It’s based on the true life account of an Irish priest who worked for the Vatican who ran the underground.There’s many more accounts of the church resisting the Nazis. Hitler had threatened the curch of invading the Vatican if it resisted his efforts. No its the other way around shit-for-brains. Secular society decided to that religious law has no place because corrupt men… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest
I’m gonna burst your fantasy bubble. The Pope, until the Allies informed him that they were winning and not going to accept anything but unconditional surrender, did next to nothing to help the jews. His excuse was neutrality, but it was strictly to grow the influence of the church. This ass knew that Jews were being exterminated and didn’t have the guts to direct the church to help. The Catholic church, itself after the Reich fell, helped Nazi war criminals escape capture/prosecution and sought pardons for convicted war criminals. Your limited example is an individual (Monsignor Hugh O’Flaherty) that worked… Read more »
TheVIYOHD
Guest

Wrong again Fuckball er fuckoyomama. Politico & huff-post sources along with wikipedia don’t count.

Fujikoma
Guest

That’s odd, since I didn’t source any of those.

Rafael X
Guest

Real war on Christians is in the middle-east. At least they are not told to marry gays or get beheaded.

Jim Bales
Guest
There is no story here, folks. The Knapps were running their chapel on a for-profit basis (in which case, as a business, they have to follow the non-discrimination laws), but on Oct. 6, 2014, decided to be a “religious organization”, which the City Attorney has stated will be “specifically exempted” from the anti-discrimination law as long as they are “truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation” . — Thank you to Javier Smith for this link: http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html — So, each of us now faces a choice. Either 1) We spread the truth that the pastors Knapp are free to operate as… Read more »
elle
Guest

Did we not learn anything from the Hobby Lobby case? The government can’t simultaneously give rights and take rights away from two opposing groups. It will be challenged, just like the Hobby Lobby case.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

I learned that corporations can have sincerely held beliefs instead of just being a legal entity intended to shield the shareholders from individual liability. It was very educational.

elle
Guest

Yes, I thought it was a very interesting case too in many ways.

RedStateJoe
Guest

Did you learn nothing from Hobby Lobby? Did you read the actual decision? The Court did NOT rule the gov’t could not enact legislation affecting religious conscious; rather, it ruled the gov’t must do so in the least restrictive means possible.

You seem to know how to read – why not actually do it sometime?

elle
Guest
Well here you are again with your chip on your shoulder lol! Don’t take it personal. I meant as a nation, did we not learn what not to do. The HL case was a fiasco that should have never happened. What I meant was that the gov should not force someone to go against their conscience/faith by law. They should have a choice. It is very personal. Homosexuals have the legal rights they wanted now. Why does it now morph into forcing Christian ministers to marry them when this act goes against their very faith. There’s just something not right… Read more »
RedStateJoe
Guest

BTW: Chip on my shoulder? You flat out got the holding in Hobby Lobby wrong. If wanting to ensure issues are debated honestly, then yea, I’ve got a chip …

elle
Guest
to apply the HL outcome to this case: Owners of a closely-held, profit-making wedding chapel can’t be forced by city ordinance to provide same sex marriages that offend their religious beliefs. The city should have seen this one coming, in fact I think they did. The Hitching Post has a work around, the city will lose taxation (?). They should have included an exemption for businesses that are strongly based in religion like a wedding chapel run by Christian ministers sitting right across the street from city hall for the past 28 years or so. It’s sort of a mess,… Read more »
elle
Guest

Owners of closely-held, profit-making corp can’t be forced
by law (ACA) to provide employees with certain
kinds of contraceptives that offend their religious beliefs. That’s what I understood the outcome to be.

RedStateJoe
Guest
You’re wrong. As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Why: because while it is permissible for the government to interfere with deeply held religious beliefs, it can only do so for a compelling reason and if done by “the least restrictive means.” Here, the state has a compelling reason to ensure all citizens are not discriminated against by business providers. The least most restrictive means available is to state that BUSINESSES must… Read more »
elle
Guest
Right. Compelling reason. One was not found. Their religious freedom was protected. The gov could not force them under the specifics of the case, which is what I said and was the result of the appeal. The gov can interfere but they better have a good reason or at this point in time it will be challenged after HL. The compelling reason with this case? Are there other ways for a same sex marriage to realize their wedding/marriage ceremony? I imagine yes there are. What is the compelling reason to go to the Hitching Post? The Hitching Post does perform… Read more »
elle
Guest
Originally I was talking about the result of HL and didn’t we learn anything from it. In the end HL got to opt out. The Hitching Post is the same situtation. Basically if either compelling reason or least restrictive fails it all fails. And I think it is only a matter of time before the Hitching Post will be in violation officially from the city as certainly a same sex couple will no doubt go to the city and file a formal complaint. I don’t think the city gov will be able to force them to perform same sex marriages… Read more »
RedStateJoe
Guest

Will you please read the decision? You’re just embarrassing yourself. You are absolutely wrong.

Hobby Loss was about “least restrictive means.” The Justices actually suggested ways to be least restrictive and coached the administration on how to try again.

At no point in the decision did the Justices state there was no compelling interest.

Stop making things up. Do some basic reading. You’ll still be able to defend the positions you want, but you’ll be able to do without sounding like a chuckle-head.

elle
Guest

Compelling reason found, least restrictive failed and HL won appeal. Yes sorry, got them turned around.

elle
Guest

I never said they said it. I said there was not one found to force the law.

RedStateJoe
Guest

Huh? The gov’t argued there was a compelling interest and the Court went along with the gov’t position.

“Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement.”

elle
Guest
“Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burder on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, too all FDA-approved contraceptives” That is why I said did we not learn anything from… Read more »
RedStateJoe
Guest
It’s been the law since 1964. Ministers who run for-profit wedding chapels as business must marry anyone who walks in the door and has the legal right to marry. If a minister holds the religious belief, as many southern Christians do, that Catholics are satanists, can he therefore refuse to perform a civil ceremony? Can he adopt a no-papist policy? What about mixed-race? Can he adopt a miscegenation policy? These people are licensed by the state to perform secular marriages. They choose to enter this line of business. If they really had a faith-based concern, they shouldn’t have chosen a… Read more »
elle
Guest

Right, HL won. 🙂 It was a victory for religious freedom.
The Hitching Post will change to not for profit. I’m not sure you can say they are not ministers. One does not have to have a church to be a minister. And yes, they never presented themselves as a church. The ordinance has a broad stroke that does not work.

Fujikoma
Guest

Hobby Lobby won because a catholic majority on the Supreme Court decided to turn Constitutional law on its head to make a statement about a woman’s decision to use her vagina the way she wants to. They specifically said that it was to be a very narrow ruling over reproduction… and yet they damaged our democratic Republic because any idiot could see where it would lead. The Hobby Lobby case will eventually be overturned by a future S.C. case because it gives religion rights over others that clearly violate a person’s Constitutionally protected rights.

stephaniejane81
Guest
So because they are a business they have to violate their conscience? Marriage to Christians has always been between one man and one woman. Just because I or someone else owns a business does not mean that we should be forced to do something that violates our faith–they are NOT a corporation. They are a small business owned by individuals who have a set of beliefs. Marriage by very definition is between one man and one woman. Tolerance by the left is not tolerance at all. Its non-existent. Liberals seem to have very little tolerance for those who don’t believe… Read more »
Jim Bales
Guest
stephaniejane81 writes: “So because they are a business they have to violate their conscience?” Not at all! The business is free to hire a JP to officiate same-sex marriages at The Hitching Post. The Knapps are not forced to officiate same-sex weddings themselves, but their for-profit business is required to serve *all* the public. Or, the Knapps are free to change The Hitching Post from a for-profit business to a not-for-profit religious corporation, in which case they can impose whatever restrictions they wish onto who can be married in their religious facility. (It appears this is what they are doing.)… Read more »
Scott Ratzloff
Guest

Jim….if you are not a believer…then your opinion of persecution holds no merit. If you are…then what do you base this on…personal opinion? It all comes down to that doesn’t it?

Jim Bales
Guest
Mr. Ratzloff, I base my assertion that the Knapps are not being persecuted on the definition of the verb “to persecute”: “To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.” For example, if a for-profit business to refuse to serve same-sex couples it is persecuting same-sex couples. Churches and religious organizations that serve their adherents (rather than the general public) are free invoke their religious beliefs and persecute others. The Knapps have filed papers to convert their for-profit business, The Hitching Post, into a not-for-profit religious organization, at which time they will be… Read more »
Scott Ratzloff
Guest

In your words….”the definition of the verb “to persecute”: “To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.” I guess it all comes down to whose rights take priority.

Jim Bales
Guest

As I posted above, and Mr. Ratzloff has not made any substantive reply to,

“The Knapps are not being oppressed or harassed. They are not being ill-treated. The are simply expected to follow the law, just like everyone else in Couer d’Alene. Therefore, we see that they are not being persecuted. No opinions are required.”

Mr. Ratzloff is so desperate to find Christians being persecuted in America today that he will bear false witness as to the circumstances the Knapps are in. Thanks to the First Amendment, he is free to make that choice.

Best
Jim Bales

jared young
Guest

No, it has not always been between one man and one woman. That is rather recent.

Scott Ratzloff
Guest

The bottom line is the LGTB naturally relies on the production of humans by man and woman unions. Without this biological truth you would soon cease to exist.

Elliot Grove
Guest

So we can ban marriages between infertile and old couples, since they can’t produce children?

jared young
Guest

Is that an argument for denying individuals the right to freely associate as they choose?

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

@Jared Young: LOL-“RECENT” (not)… as in Genesis 2:18, 2:24, Proverbs 18:22, Jeremiah 29:6, 1 Corinthians 7:2-4
I rest my case!

jared young
Guest

lol, I’ll pass on the Bible for now, too much good fiction to read out there to waste my time.

P.S. you should check out the alternate ending, the one where they admit it was created by man so that a few could dominate the many.

Jim Bales
Guest
Let us not forget these Biblical figures with multiple wives: Esau: “Esau went to Ishmael and took as his wife, besides the wives he had,Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebaioth.” (Genesis 28:9) Abraham: “So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.” (Genesis 16:3) Gideon: “Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring for he had many wives.” (Judges 8:30) David: “And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came… Read more »
stephaniejane81
Guest
I remember telling people a while ago that I was concerned that legalizing gay marriage would set a new precedent that would eventually become an attack on religious freedom–forcing people to violate their conscience, their beliefs. I told them to watch and see the government try to force Christian ministers to perform gay wedding ceremonies or face fines, etc. Those who supported gay marriage assured me that it would not happen, that they just wanted people to have “equal rights” …not force their beliefs on others. I said “just watch.” Well, here we are. I just didn’t know it would… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest

Women are no longer property to be sold into marriage. Women don’t have to marry their rapists. We outlaw child marriage. We outlaw polygamy. Religion doesn’t own the term ‘marriage’. Marriage existed before christianity (or judaism) came into being. It has changed throughout history and continues to change as society changes.

Misty Gucci
Guest

That is why we must vote republican and erase everything this Implant Muslim of a president we have did to our country. Obozo is trying to divide and ruin this country…. He has only two years left and he is going to on the war path to destruct this country.

RedStateJoe
Guest

FWIW, not only is the story a lie, the headline is also nonsense.

Here’s the definition of pastor:

pas·tor

ˈpastər/

noun

1.a minister in charge of a Christian church or congregation.

These two aren’t pastors, they have neither a Church nor a Congregation. They are business people who want to break the law.

West got kicked out of the Army for not following the Rule of Law, so now he’s defending everyone just doing what the heck they want, laws by damned.

What a chuckle-head.

Don
Guest

The term “duly ordained minister of religion” means a person who has been ordained, in accordance with the ceremonial, ritual, or discipline of a church, religious sect, or organization established on the basis of a community of faith and belief, doctrines and practices of a religious character, to preach and to … …
United States Code: Title 50a,466. Definitions | LII / Legal …

RedStateJoe
Guest

Exactly right – which is why the headline, calling these two Pastors, is a lie. A pastor is a duly ordained minister who has a flock or a congregation. These two don’t. These two have neither.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

elle
Guest
They are ministers. Your definition is good but narrow. They are evangelical Christian ministers, both he and his wife. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel that’s been around since the 1920’s ordained him in 1970 after years of serving as a pastors assistant, then pastor, and his wife in 1978. I’m just not sure how you can take that away just because you say they aren’t. They don’t want to break the law. The law is directly opposite of their vows as ministers and their Christian beliefs. They would likely lose their ministry if they performed a same sex marriage.… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest

There are no issues. They run their church, they can discriminate. They run a business in the public sphere, the can’t discriminate.

RedStateJoe
Guest

They have no flock, they are not pastors. They are owners of a Wedding Chapel business that provides civil wedding services in a city that has an ordinance saying discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal.

elle
Guest

They don’t have to have a flock.

Misty Gucci
Guest

Just lost my late supper.

RedStateJoe
Guest

IKR? The lies West writes are nauseating!

Alan Lee
Guest

This is so stupid. They run a business licensed through their state, not a church. No church is being forced to marry gays, but if you want to run a “marriage business” unfortunately you have to follow the law.

Scott Ratzloff
Guest

I was always under the impression that any establishment had the right to refuse service. No shirt No Shoes No Dice!

ClaudeL
Guest

No shirt/no shoes is health and safety issue, and is not discrimination.
Refusing service because of someone’s sexual orientation, however, is discrimination. Discrimination is illegal.

Scott Ratzloff
Guest
It also refers to behavior…..if you are creating a disturbance you can and should be asked to leave. To liken sexual ‘orientation’ to skin color is disingenuous. I suppose an argument could be made for ‘born that way’ theology though there isn’t any valid scientific proof to support that position. Our behavior is a choice What is the status of Bi-sexual – HeShe’s etc. or those who return to hetero? I know of one such gentlemen who received hormone treatments and developed quite nicely. He did not go through with the rest of the transformation and now is thinking of… Read more »
ClaudeL
Guest

Furthermore, I never once likened sexual orientation to skin color. In fact, I hadn’t even mentioned skin color until this very comment. What you’ve just done is called ‘strawman’. I’d tell you to look it up, but I doubt you’d bother educating yourself.

And no, not all behavior is choice. Once again, you lay your ignorance bare.

I’ve lost count of how many times the disingenuous have accused me of being disingenuous. The irony aside, can you even define the word, Scott?

Scott Ratzloff
Guest

Uhhhh…no…..I jus heard it on Faux News onetime 😉

ClaudeL
Guest

There’s no valid scientific proof?
And you just pulled that response out of your ass, for there actually is a growing body of scientific evidence showing sexual orientation is anything but choice.

Just like the last religitard who brought this up, I don’t expect you to accept science. Keep on with your discriminating-while-pretending-not-to-discriminate.

I don’t need to move to any other country, because mine actually supports same-sex marriage. Stick your baseless assumptions up your ass; they can keep your swollen head company. 🙂

Scott Ratzloff
Guest

By the way…provide un-biased links to support your scientific claims. and yes……you first….this is going to be fun!!!! 🙂

ClaudeL
Guest

Nothing but a religious site would be considered ‘unbiased’ by you, Scott. I don’t play into head games or intellectual traps.
You’re more than welcome to get off your proverbial ass and educate yourself.
Unless you’re wanting to hire me as a tutor? No? Do your own research.

Guest
Guest

Nothing but a religious site would be considered ‘unbiased’ by you, Scott. I don’t play into head games or intellectual traps.
You’re more than welcome to get off your proverbial ass and education yourself.
Unless you’re wanting to hire me as a tutor? No? Do your own research.

Scott Ratzloff
Guest

Educate yourself on the history and rules of debate…..unless all you really want to hear is the tepid senseless meanderings of a libtard bigot! Shove off Mate!! Lol 🙂 This is fun!!!! oh…by the way where is your profile pic? A futuristic robot only proves that you have not grown out of the pre-teen stage.

ClaudeL
Guest

It’s amusing how you’re appealing to some history and rules of debate, when you’ve just committed one of the most common logical fallacies one can use in a debate.
Let’s see if you can figure out which one. 🙂

Scott Ratzloff
Guest

My my….such a tolerant attitude. 😉

ClaudeL
Guest

I never claimed to have a tolerant attitude towards bullshit. In fact, I’m quite open with expressing the opposite.
Keep on shoveling, mate.

Don
Guest

There is no shred of evidence that sexual behavior is anything but an environmental result. At this time, no genetic trait has been identified to prove that some people are born gay or straight for that matter. Sexual behavior appears to be a result of nurture, not nature

ClaudeL
Guest

Feel free to follow the research citations provided in the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Empirical_studies

RedStateJoe
Guest

No Jews
No N1&&ers
No Papists
No Muslims

yea, that’s America — NOT.

It’s only been the law since 1964 … how long has it been since you picked up a book?

stephaniejane81
Guest
no one is saying that homosexuals can’t live in America–that’s what you seem to be implying….no one is even saying that they can’t have a relationship with who they want. This is about the institution of marriage which has always been to Christians between one man and one woman. Please do not equate this with racism–hating someone for their ethnicity or their race. Just because we do not want to change the definition of marriage does not mean we hate homosexuals. We disagree with the lifestyle of men having sex with men (and women with women). How can that be… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest
The christian definition of marriage is not how the United States defines marriage (the Constitution violates quite a lot of christian laws). Christians do not own the term and christians, themselves, have changed that term over the years. Christians are no longer allowed to sell young girls off to older men for marriage, but you don’t see anyone getting upset about that (maybe some really fringe people). Polygamy is no longer allowed. Spousal rape is no longer allowed (legally). Forcing rape victims to marry their attackers (or stoning them for being raped) is no longer allowed. Gay marriage is allowed… Read more »
stephaniejane81
Guest
I have a feeling you’ve never read the New Testament. nothing you accuse Christians of is taught by Jesus or the New Testament–not rape, not polygamy, not spousal rape, not selling young girls, not forcing rape victims to marry their attackers–I have no idea where you got those ideas from, but its not Jesus. You won’t find Jesus condoning any of that. Sure some “Christians” don’t truly follow the bible and they’ll cherry pick what they want and dismiss what they don’t like. Some have decided they will change the bible to go with the flow of society. That’s not… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest
You’re mistaken. It’s from the O.T. and Jesus was quite clear that the laws still remained. He was just a new form of salvation. Violating christian values… Amendment 1: Freedom of Religion violates the commandment against other religions/gods, remembering sabbath, graven images. Really, this affects all christian laws/rules that are not secular, which pretty much existed before christianity anyways. Also means Freedom from Religion by definition. Something most people forget. Amendment 1: Freedom of Speech violates commandment of taking god’s name in vain. Amendment 13: Abolishes slavery… god endorsed slavery Amendment 21: End Prohibition… there’s differing views in the bible… Read more »
RedStateJoe
Guest

Not at all what I was implying. I’m replying to the idea that businesses can withhold services to anyone they want. They can’t. Been that way since 19 & 64.

This town has decided that sexual orientation is a protected status. Churches don’t have to marry gays, but for-profit wedding businesses do.

Scott Ratzloff
Guest

I knew that this would bring you further out of your cave Joe. When I don’t see a profile picture…I think troll. Why don’t you have the guts of your convictions and back it up with a picture of your self? Uploading a .jpeg is not brain surgery! 🙂 Have a nice day.

RedStateJoe
Guest

You admit to being a troll, and using racialism to achieve it, then you whine that someone who uses facts and cogent argument is a troll because of no photo?

You’re a bigot, a troll and an idiot.

ClaudeL
Guest

Would you expect honesty or facts from someone working with Faux News?

Mr. Moderate 49
Guest

Ha! ha! ha!

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

@Frank J Kikta: you might actually surround yourself with several versions of the Bible and concordances to “know what God is thinking” yourself. (You prove your ignorance by your additional statements.)

Mr. Moderate 49
Guest
Grew up Catholic and we were taught the King James version – before you call me ignorant you proved my point – if there are as you say several versions of the bible how do you know which one to trust- if they are as you bible thumpers say the word of God then all should be exactly the same. Catholics do not take the bible literal but as stories to learn from and we do not focus on the Old Testament but the new one because it is about Jesus teaching – By the way Catholic monks copied the… Read more »
amusing_myself
Guest
The New Testament contains no stories, and yes, I find it odd that Catholics do not study (or read) the Old Testament and have added to the original Canonized Bible… anyway, back to subject. There is a statement that covers your question on why he did not speak about homosexuality. Jesus specifically said that he was not here to change or add to the law. Therefore, his silence on many things is his affirmation of what is already written. By using your man-made slide-rule, he also did not talk on or about many other things including eating pork, circumcision, intermingling… Read more »
Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

Mr moderate 49, I have also studied with scholars…how quick you are to judge I did not see a point in advertising it “as if” to prove a point….Matthew 7:5 (KJV)

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

Mr. Moderate 49, with due respect, I can respond to your question: some spoke Hebrew, some were Greeks, others spoke Aramaic, and scholars of these languages have done their best to translate the WORD from these languages. That is why I suggested a couple of good concordances while conducting any “study” of any “version” of the Bible you choose. “Let those with ears hear.” Amen! Blessings on your scripture journey! 🙂 ♡

dino
Guest
Sadly you fail to see something. Jesus is God, AS such Jesus said: “I didnt come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”. Jesus as God is the same from yesterday, today and for the generations. Jesus/God said in Leviticus that the chosen behavior of homosexuality is an abomination he also said that the man MUST leave his father and mother and clive to his woman. that is clear. why you say he didnt said anything about homosexuality is clearly false. The Disciple of Christ who lived 3 years with Him till he died at the cross wrote letters… Read more »
Alan Lee
Guest

He also said in Leviticus don’t get tattoos, eat pork, or shave your beard…

ClaudeL
Guest

If your god is thinking a certain thing, how can any one person’s interpretation of a book, regardless of how many versions of it you reference, be anything but interpretation?

But hey, keep pretending that words in a book equal the thoughts of a deity. The supposedly omnipotent and omniscient deity that seems incapable of getting a story straight, or letting everyone know the same thing in terms of what it is thinking.

Benny Roberson
Guest

The Bible says, ‘ALL Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,for training righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.’ 2Timothy 3;16,17. Note; That (ALL) would mean both the Old and the New Testaments are to be our text books as we seek to know God’s will for each of our lives.

ClaudeL
Guest

Note, that the New Testament never existed until it was created by the Catholic Church in the 4th/5th centuries C.E., and thus the ‘scriptures’ referred to in 2 Timothy were only those of the Hebrew bible, NOT the New Testament that came centuries later.
Because, you know, logic…

ClaudeL
Guest

If you truly believe that, then you’d best get to stoning people to death, else you’re a hypocrite.

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

Claude L, my response to you is the same as that given to Mr. Moderate 49, above. Blessings to you also, in Jesus’ name, Amen!♡

disqus_mo8ewPYVck
Guest

Your statement is exactly why I only use the King James Version and almost always cross-reference that with the Aramaic(Lamsa) Version. There aren’t that many “mistakes” in any version, but what better way to throw unbelievers into more unbelief by the Master of Lies? Make a bunch of different versions – divide and conquer. The time is coming when you will not know what to believe and there will be no convincing anyone. Choose a side; the time is short.

ClaudeL
Guest

Awww. That’s so cute. You’re under the impression that your particular flavor of the bible isn’t so flawed. 🙂

disqus_mo8ewPYVck
Guest

Best of luck to you.

Elliot Grove
Guest

Read “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”, by Bart Erhman.
Then discus how there aren’t that many mistakes.

disqus_mo8ewPYVck
Guest

And to you, sir.

Elliot Grove
Guest

I value learning what is true. I would hope you would too.

Ziva (Candace) McCabe
Guest
Ziva (Candace) McCabe

Disqus does value learning what is true, by virtue of the response given to you and Claude L.. Discus is a clear Bible Scholar, and I applaud the kind response offered as I could not recall the name (Lamsa) with regard to the Aramaic language. Thanks, Discuqus, and Blessings to you!♡

ClaudeL
Guest
Reading the bible and believing it wholesale does not equate to ‘learning what is true’. First, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic. The Hebrew bible (what Christians call the ‘Old Testament’) was written mostly in Hebrew (duh) and Aramaic. Second, the fact that biblical scholars have attempted to translate it from its original languages to modern languages is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the bible itself is factual. Third, that some of the names of places and people, and some (not many) of the happenings actually took place in no way verifies the unverified/unverifiable statements and… Read more »
dino
Guest
also the natural mind cannot understand the bible, only born again christians can. the world believe thebible is full of mistakes cause they do not want to believe in God and cause of rebellion, plain and simple. They look for ways to justify their wickedness. The Authority of The Bible is unshakable and no one but no one has more Authority Than the bible. The Bible is clear. any sexual behaviors outside of Man and Woman (penis-vagina) in holy matrimony is an abomination and not accepted by God. We Walk with Him and He allows us to know what is… Read more »
Elliot Grove
Guest

So essentially, you claim to know the mind of the unbeliever better than they do.
And they say atheists are arrogant….

dino
Guest
there is a reason why we dont use outside sources or non christian books, simple, they lie. The Devil’s Job is easy, make The Believers reject The Bible as full of mistakes so he can lead them unto hell and unto a big deception. The Bible is NOT full of Mistakes and The Word of God is Inspired by God and His Holy Spirits. The Man who wrote the Bible wrote it cause God Himself told them to do it. Thats why The Bible can only be interpretated with The Guide of The Holy Spirit and With its own words.… Read more »
Elliot Grove
Guest

Seriously, read Bart Erhman.
The bible is a mess.

dino
Guest
Like I said. Those that haven’t been born again will not understand the bible cause their minds are clouded and their spiritual eyes closed. When we are born again our spiritual eyes are opened and thru God’s Guidance we see the riches of the bible and the wisdom of it. The Bible was written for believers that’s why none believers will never understand it. Cause the natural mind is limited and God’s a spirit so its necessary those that belief in Him in Spirit reach Him. Same with The Bible. God said His Word its final. And so it is.… Read more »
Elliot Grove
Guest

What you have said is 100% mindless preaching, and meaningless.

“its clear only unbelievers reject the bible.” Yes, because if we didn’t, we wouldn’t be unbelievers.

“Our Only Source of Truth IS The Bible” And this is why we don’t take you seriously. You don’t worship god. You worship a book.

disqus_mo8ewPYVck
Guest

LOL.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

If you’re so convinced that sexuality is a choice Allen, then put your money where your mouth is. Choose to be gay. Just for a week, you can switch back at the end of it. But you have to change your sexual orientation by conscious decision. It should be easy if you’re so convinced that’s what other people have done.

Tolerate Opposing Views
Guest
Tolerate Opposing Views

Agreed. Why can’t people tolerate these Pastors who have opposing views? Who is intolerant??

Fujikoma
Guest

There views are tolerated, in their own homes and churches, not a business that operates in the public sphere. Your rights end where another’s begin when you’re in the public arena… that’s what equality is about. When you go home or to your church, you can be as bigoted to people as you like (although certain laws will still need to be followed, as you can’t just stone someone for being gay anymore).

Beedogz
Guest

KKGay demands all others bow down to them. KKGay is intolerant.

elle
Guest

Well that’s a little extreme LOL – pretty sure he’d say you first Paul.
You are either X or Y. There is no gay gene.

Fujikoma
Guest

You’re correct, there is no ONE gay gene. Sexuality is comprised of multiple DNA switches, which explains the wide range of human experience in the matter, from gay to straight to bi to trans to asexual and some other esoteric variations.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

Then it’s not a choice is it? Done. Settled.

Joel Trout
Guest

Then, by your logic, pedophilia isn’t a choice, either, right?

Paul Sheridan
Guest

I would say it’s not a choice to be attracted to children. But it’s a choice to act on that feeling by victimizing a child. And that’s the key distinction. Pedophiles have victims, homosexuals do not. Also not a choice to be heterosexual either, obviously.

elle
Guest

I don’t think something like this will ever be settled.

Tony Todd
Guest
To the Right: Really, you all need to wake up. This only gets better when supporters of traditional marriage, culture and Christian liberty show up in mass, armed with weapons and tell leftist Nazis in Couer D’Alene, Houston, etc to back down when they assert this crap. They are playing for keeps. They do not care about democracy or liberty. (How much of gay “marriage” adoption been done by leftist judicial force over the votes of the people?) Though they are not “religious” in the sense of having a god, the left does very much have a religious devotion to… Read more »
elle
Guest

I think you may need to rethink your strategy. . . .going cowboy on Couer d’Alene

Elliot Grove
Guest

“what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

-Principal, Billy Madison

Paul Sheridan
Guest

I particularly like the part where the supporters of traditional marriage should arm themselves and go intimidate the democracy-hating Nazis into doing what they want. You just can’t make this stuff up.

ERIN
Guest
Please read: NO ONE HAS HARASSED THIS BUSINESSS: “The city of Coeur d’Alene has been contacted by a huge volume of people inquiring about our anti-discrimination ordinance, passed in 2013 by the City Council. These contacts have been a reaction to a lawsuit filed by the owners of a local marriage chapel, the Hitching Post, which claims the city has taken inappropriate action against their business for their decision to not perform same-sex marriages. In fact, the city has received no complaints about the Hitching Post and we have never threatened them. If we did get a complaint we would… Read more »
elle
Guest
Do you represent the city of Coeur d’Alene? If a complaint is made “you” will have to enforce the law will “you” not? As it stands they are not exempt. Are “you” planning on fast tracking their request to be redetermined as a “not for profit” status so that you can refrain from prosecuting under your own ordinance? Bottom line is the contents of the ordinance is what is threatening them, don’t you see that? No need to wait for the city to harass as surely a complaint will present itself now that homosexual marriage is legal in Coeur d’Alene.… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest
The ministers aren’t being discriminated against. They are businessmen that happen to be ministers, running a business. As such, they have to follow the law and KNEW they had to follow the law and any FUTURE law that pertain to businesses. If they don’t wish to follow the law, then they have the option of not running a business and retaining all their bigoted rights in the protected church setting. Your rights don’t get to override someone else’s rights in the public sphere. That’s why they get to have their church protected, but not the business.
Beedogz
Guest

Shove it up your liberal LYING backside.

Beedogz
Guest
If one clergy member will not perform the ceremony, go find a clergy member who will. Instead the KKGay with intolerance and hate want to destroy the clergy members who do not want to preform the ceremony. Since when in the USA should people be forced to do things like this? Hey gays, if we pass a law that you must all hang yourselves will you do so simply because the ordinance requires it? I have always tolerated and not discriminated against anyone in the past knowingly, but that has now ended. I shall return the KKGay’s intolerance back upon… Read more »
Opinionated American
Guest
I have no real issue about same sex relationships as long as I am no included in their lifestyle. I do have an issue with government authority stepping in and dictating my 1st amendment right and forcing my hand on any issues. I am Still fighting to regain those we have lost already. If you are a true Christian. Then persecution of your beliefs will always be attacked. Do as the word of God tells you. Stand up in the name of God and Refuse Our choices are up to God’s judgement. A government entity cannot interfere with church. Any… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest

Actually, churches can be forced to obey the law… such as, you don’t have the right to stone people anymore. Nor can you enforce your religious rules on others… such as, not eating shellfish, menstruation rituals, mixed fabric rules, praying rules…

Jim Marchu
Guest

Tube

TheVIYOHD
Guest

It’s a conscience issue moron

Fujikoma
Guest
No, it’s a bigoted christian issue… specifically, a bigoted buffet christian issue, since they pick and choose which rules/laws that they want to follow. See, you don’t understand the you can be bigoted in your home, among your kind, at your church. While society may care, they accept that level of stupidity as a necessary evil of freedom of thought (or conscience, depending on your lexicon). The problem occurs in the public sphere where a bigot’s rights END when they interfere with the rights of others. You can still believe the way you do, you just can’t enforce your beliefs… Read more »
Jim Marchu
Guest

Maybe you fags are a little bigoted

Fujikoma
Guest

There are gays who probably are bigoted. Your powers of deduction are flawed… as I’m not gay, nor a stick, nor a cigarette. Not that your comment has any bearing to anything in general.

TheVIYOHD
Guest

OK I’m walking into the first homo bakery I see & demanding a cake to be made for my special event. The Westboro Baptist Jamboree. I want my cake to say “God Hates Fags” will you be so kind to bake it for me.

Fujikoma
Guest

If this imaginary bakery made ‘god hates breeders’ cakes, then it would only be fair to make yours although I don’t see myself having a problem making any dumb cake as long as the customizations were paid for in advance by everyone. If it made wedding cakes and put little figures of straight couples or white couples on them, then it would fair to put little figures of gay couples or mixed race couples on them.

Jim Marchu
Guest

Never

TheVIYOHD
Guest

Proves my point. You have no “conscience” then. Many Christians do, & won’t follow “mammon” to violate their conscience. Also, mixed race has nothing to do with your argument, which is very circular by the way

Fujikoma
Guest
Mixed race marriage does have something to do with this. The same law that allows discrimination against gay marriages also allows for discrimination against mixed race marriages. Same arguments were used when whites and blacks had to fight society for the right to be together. S.C. even had an idiot using the bible’s view on mixing of the races to try and justify not allowing blacks into his restaurants (Piggy Park Enterprise… lost his Supreme Court case to not pay out lawyer fees after losing his case of religious based discrimination with a business). Same religious b.s. with a different… Read more »
TheVIYOHD
Guest

Crickets

ZanyZoe
Guest

This was not a church, these pastors run a for-profit wedding chapel & that’s why it’s subject to the anti-discrimination laws – because it’s a business!

kathy
Guest

I DO BELIEVE THIS IS ILLEGAL IN USA, I do not give a crap a SUPPOSED JUDGE RULED.. many need to be impeached. GAYS cant ya do your own weddings in your own special chapels.. Seems ya want to PERSECUTE AMERICA and being USED BY THIS. REGIME. 1st amendment states. I suggest ya read it. A Judge Rules on Laws. Congrass has passsed NO LAW /it is ILLEGAL….. I DO NOT CARE WHAT SOME STUPID PAID OFF JUDGE STATED…

Elliot Grove
Guest

And ya see everyone, when it is yelled in all caps like that, it must be true….

Jim Marchu
Guest

Tube out

Carie Olliff Gilpatrick
Guest
Carie Olliff Gilpatrick
Argue scripture, what’s right, what’s wrong all you want. You are all doing something that is not your right to do & that is basically the ultimate sin (for those who believe in God)….you are acting as God & JUDGING! Divorce is a sin, adultery is a sin, murder is a sin, jealousy is a sin, stealing is a sin….& I bet that everyone of you have done at least one, if not all of these in your life. Including myself. So what if Gay people want to get married. What business is it of yours? Does it interfere in… Read more »
stephaniejane81
Guest
discerning between what is right and wrong is not judging. condemning someone for sinning is judging. If I agree with Jesus on what he taught as right and wrong, that is not judging. It is possible to love someone and disagree with them at the same time. or do you always agree with people? Jesus always showed compassion to sinners–of which we all are. No one is righteous on his own. however, he always told them to go and sin no more–to repent and to turn from their sinful ways. How judgmental of Jesus! and Jesus never partook of sin… Read more »
BobTrent
Guest

It’s called “slavery” or “involuntary servitude.”

Jim Marchu
Guest

Shut up pig fuqer

Benny Roberson
Guest
Yes it does interfere with my life. It will influence young people to think that homosexuality is a normal thing for them to do. It has a very bad influence upon society. Like the copy cat school shooters, and murderers. Wait till some young family member of yours chooses that life style.Then you will (or may) understand better. God says, (not me) that those who do such things,( along with the other things you mentioned), if unrepented of, will bar them from entering the Kingdom of Heaven! God is the rule maker for those who will live forever in the… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest

It isn’t a lifestyle, it is genetically determined. Gay people can’t change who they are attracted to anymore than straight people decide which sex they’re attracted to. There’s also a reason why the Constitution has freedom of religion. Not everyone believes in the same made up b.s. and some people don’t believe in any of it at all (‘from’ being the other part of the ‘of’). It isn’t your choice to decide someone else’s sexuality.

stephaniejane81
Guest
are pedafiles born with a sexual attraction to children? I’m asking you seriously. Sexual attraction is not genetic–although that lie has been sold very well. Do you know how many people I know of that were sexually molested when they were younger who turned out to be gay? A lot. How much did the horror of that abuse affect them emotionally and in other ways? It is true that some people have more of a propensity to have those homosexual feelings based on certain negative experiences they have had and how they respond to them based on their genetic make-up.… Read more »
Fujikoma
Guest
Really. I don’t know anyone that turned gay from being abused like that. They have plenty of issues when it comes to sexuality, but they didn’t ‘turn’ gay. Your claim doesn’t hold with scientific data… peer reviewed data from people that specialize in this field as their profession. There is no single ‘gay’ gene. It is a combination of genes, which is why sexual attraction varies. I’d say that in the twins with ‘identical’ genes, they’re probably bi and since they will have had differing environmental experiences, one feels more comfortable liking the same sex as opposed to the other.… Read more »
BobTrent
Guest

When the “peers” who review homosexualist articles are themselves homosexualists if not active homosexuals themselves, what should be expected? The buggers surely are going to endorse whatever suits their agenda.

Jim Marchu
Guest

Just take the tube out a yer face

Steve
Guest

Marriage is a civil institution. Not a religious one.
Anyway, isnt christian persecution a tradition too?

TheVIYOHD
Guest

Moron

BobTrent
Guest

What about Steve’s comment do you disagree with? Marriage is influenced by the religion or lack thereof of the parties, but it is a private contract between the groom and the bride.
Christians have been persecuted since shortly after the founding of the church, both by pagans and by others professing to be Christians but not reflecting the teachings of Christ.
At any rate, the argumentum ad hominem rejoinder just means that you are unable to articulate the reasoning of whatever position you have taken.

theresa951
Guest

My Uncle Adrian got an awesome 9 month old Mercedes E-Class Diesel only from working part-time off a macbook… navigate to this web-site ….>> -> INCREASE YOUR EARNINGS!! <-

BobTrent
Guest
Yes, marriage is a nonreligious institution. It is a private contract between two people who are qualified to marry one another. Ordering anyone to solemnize a pseudo-marriage between two persons of the same sex, between a human and a dog, goat, sheep, or other nonhuman creature, pet rock, whatever, is a joke. It is like a tourist attraction’s “wedding” between two hound dogs. The legislators, judges and enforcers are making themselves out to be abject fools. Next on the agenda: “Sex before eight or it’s too late!” Bestiality may have to wait, for PETA is presently opposed to sex with… Read more »