Here’s EXACTLY why the Religious Freedom Act is so important

I’ve been watching the debate over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Act — and now Arkansas has adopted similar legislation. Now, in full disclosure, I support civil unions believing that marriage is defined as a relationship between one man and one woman — the traditional view. I fully support anyone choosing within his or her “pursuit of happiness” to enjoin in a relationship with someone of the same sex — privilege to choose, not a mandated right.

What I find interesting is this liberal progressive leftist rant over “fairness.” I am still wondering who are those people in the far away rooms that determine what is fair or what is for the “social good.

Here in America, out First Amendment right is for freedom of religion, but it seems some are seeking a freedom FROM religion — and they can freely choose NOT to have a religious faith.

But what is most disconcerting about the argument I hear presented from the left is that they feel my right to freedom of religion is trumped by someone else’s choice of sexual partner.

I remember a quote that goes something like this, “the right of an individual to throw a punch stops at another individual’s nose.” So let me present a simple question: is it fair for someone to be forced to accept a lifestyle choice from another that is inconsistent with their freedom of religion and free exercise thereof ? That’s what it says in the Constitution, if that still matters.

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Convention advanced the premise that America would not have a Head of State who is also the Head of Church. That was what he meant by separation of church and state. Jefferson also put forth that he did not want a nation where the state could subjugate religious beliefs to the state. Sounds pretty simple to me, but are we on a different path?

Consider a baker in Oregon who is a Christian, and when asked to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage humbly declined based upon free exercise of religion. It was not a rejection of the patrons because of their sexual behavioral choice — it was the event.

I am quite certain the same baker would have humbly declined to bake a cake for a polygamous event or something else inconsistent with their beliefs. Is it fair that that baker has lost their business and been viciously attacked? Or how about a photographer who humbly declines a request to shoot a same sex marriage due to their religious belief. Is it fair that the state, i.e. the government, should bring suit against them and destroy their business? Somehow I don’t think that was what Jefferson had in mind.

Therefore, have we come to a point in America where the right of an individual to hold religious beliefs is being made subject by way of coercion, intimidation, and government tyranny to the whims of a minority? Maybe, just maybe that’s why Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Act — to protect those with religious beliefs — which are not radical — from persecution. Then maybe we are no longer a nation with a Judeo-Christian faith heritage that respects and honors Christian principles. If that be the case, and this is the opening towards a secular humanist state, just say so.

I find it odd that we are now in the religious persecution mode, which is why Pilgrims came to America in the first place.

And get this impeccable irony — the White House releases a statement against Gov. Pence while sitting at the table trying to get a nuclear deal with a country, Iran, that hangs gays and lesbians. Yep, I know, such hypocrisy isn’t just laughable but disturbing.

This isn’t about denying gays and lesbians service. They are individuals and no one is putting up a sign — unlike what my mom and dad had to endure.

However, is it really fair to force a private sector business owner to do something against their First Amendment right to the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof? And sadly, we have charlatans like Al Sharpton who will try to equate this to race — incomparable. When I walk into an establishment there are two identifying characteristics — male, black. There are no other behavioral aspects that are known, unless, I feel so compelled to broadcast such in an attention-grabbing stunt.

So, in conclusion, this ruckus is much ado about nothing — other than a certain group that seeks to impose its lifestyle and behavioral choice upon others. Now that ladies and gents isn’t fair — and it’s even more unfair when the state is complicit by way of coercive policies allowing one to throw the punch, forcing the other to take it on the nose.

I think we need to have a conversation in America about what is a right, and what is a privilege.

507 COMMENTS

  1. You hit the nail on the head here. I believe in gay union and I will bake them a cake, Dj or take their pictures if they want BUT I also believe that people should have the right to their beliefs and be protected from those who want them to violate their beliefs. What kills me is that you don’t see the gays going into a Muslim baker or caterer for business- why is it just Christians AGAIN? My daughter is gay- if she finds someone to marry, God Bless Them (and hopefully she will move out finally!!!) There are 100’s of businesses that will help with the planning BUT we (yes, she agrees) won’t violate someones religious beliefs because its hypocritical. You can’t say “respect me” when you don’t “respect” them.

    • I agree entirely with you here. I am only seeking out gay friendly businesses and establishments for my upcoming wedding. The larger issue is open access to state services, like judges or clerks of the court to perform the service. I have found a gay Catholic chaplain to perform mine. Others choose to have no religious affiliation and need a justice or clerk of court for legal reasons.

      • Gay Catholic Chaplain is an oxymoron…he isn’t a man of God. He is a hypocrite. But whatever.

  2. I want someone to take their pet pig into a taxi driven by a Muslim and we will then see the media, Obama and all these hypocrites trying to spin it the other way.

  3. Exactly the point I just made against the NASCAR statement on this issue. Why aren’t they saying anything about ISIS throwing someone off the top of buildings? Where’s their outrage over ISIS?

    • If ISIS is so important then why are you wasting your time getting outraged about what NASCAR is doing? Shouldn’t you be spending all your time being outraged about that?

      • I have a voice and I am outraged about both issues. I just don’t think companies or corporations should weigh in on one matter like many have done while they aren’t equally outraged about an issue like this Freedom of religion reformation act that is not about gay couples being denied access to a Sanctioned race or a movie or a restaurant as they so stated.
        It’s about protecting businesses from frivolous lawsuits from these groups of people. What I stated was why aren’t they outraged about the persecution of the true atrocities against these people’s issues like they implied in their statement about our Freedom of biblical beliefs.

      • Obviously you’re entitled to your opinion but equally obviously other people (or stock car racing business ventures) aren’t obliged to share your priorities. I would imagine that NASCAR is commenting on this case because they do an awful lot of business in Indiana and not commenting on ISIS because they don’t do any business in Iraq and Syria. It’s not relevant to their business interests.

  4. When you mentioned a photographer refusing to take a picture at a gay wedding, I thought a photographer should be able to turn down any request that he/she felt like turning down. If I was photographer and someone asked me to take pictures of them nude I would turn down the request. It’s against my comfort zone. So why don’t people just find a different photographer rather than making this another agenda issue? Because there is an agenda that is going on right under our nose and people are turning a blind eye. This is what is so ludicrous about things being selectively crammed down our throats. Where does it stop? It should stop before it gets started!! NOW!

    • The entire point about the photographer as well as any business that refuses to cooperate with the liberal gay agenda, is to force and violate the 1st amendment rights of any religion that does not agree with the gay lifestyle, primarily,Christians and Christian businesses as the example, although there are other religions, such as islam that are violently opposed to that lifestyle.

      • Liberal agenda is the “de-Christianization” of Western Civilization.
        Not only that below about “Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became
        Our State Religion, is “AGENDA: Grinding America Down”
        After Words: Benjamin Wiker, “Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State Religion,”
        About the Program

        Benjamin Wiker argues that people on the political left are seeking to establish secularism
        as the official religion for the U.S. They are organizing the complete
        “de-Christianization” of Western Civilization, he says, and plan to
        replace personal faith with the collective dependence on the federal
        government. He discusses his theory with Washington Post writer Krissah
        Thompson. http://cs.pn/1iBU4HN

        Look inside http://www.amazon.com/Worshipping-State-Liberalism-Became-Religion-ebook/dp/B00BSETVLQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401300826&sr=8-1&keywords=worshipping+the+state+how+liberalism+became+our+state+religion#reader_B00BSETVLQ

        from Dr Wiker website G. K. Chesterton’s Wisdom

        “Abolish God, and the Government becomes God…Wherever the people do
        not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world.
        But, above all, they will worship the strongest thing in the world.”

        As usual, Chesterton was a prophet–and you’ll find out why in Benjamin
        Wiker’s Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State
        Religion…. http://www.benjaminwiker.com/worshipping-the-state.html
        The continuation of grinding down the values of America!
        AGENDA:Grinding America Down (below the movieguide review is link to watch full documentary online)
        ~
        In Brief:

        AGENDA: GRINDING AMERICA DOWN is the most powerful exposé of the
        communist, socialist, progressive attempt to take over America produced
        so far. This is not a conspiracy documentary about a secret collusion
        between two or more conspirators to affect some nefarious change, but
        rather a clear look at the publicized agenda of the hard left and shows
        how they have effectively implemented that public agenda. The
        documentary starts with a quote from Joseph Stalin, “America is like a
        healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its
        morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas,
        America will collapse from within.” Then, the documentary shows the
        steps the Communist Party said were necessary to destroy America’s
        patriotism, morality and faith. Incredibly, they were able to achieve
        their agenda.
        This clear exposé alone makes this documentary worth
        watching. More than that, the documentary presents the connections
        between the different communist, socialist, progressive organizations
        with great clarity and shows how they implemented their agenda in each
        area of life. AGENDA is absolutely brilliant for its well-researched
        understanding of the issues. It is must viewing. AGENDA is a great
        documentary. http://bit.ly/XyWw7S
        AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS8Ss3ua1nE

      • Saw it, and found it frightening. What we are seeing, is history repeating itself. The agenda as well as the tactics that are being employed in our country today, have been used in past history by both the nazi’s as well as the communist.

        We can see what is happening, and we will either stop it, or continue to watch our country destroyed by evil that cares nothing for our country, but for the power that this evil will have over us.

      • Did you all know that the Bible actually foretold these events would take place in The Last Days? If Christ were on earth today, the Gays and liberals would have him killed. He was a peaceful man who taught God gave us Free Will….love God with your whole heart, mind and strength. Or love yourself more and accept the consequences of your actions. Choice is the freedom to choose to love God and his Standards or to love what the world loves. 1 John 5:19 we are told “We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one (Satan)” The whole world is under Satan’s control so you will not see any love of Christians. Jesus further warned Christian…They persecuted me they will persecute you. Today Christians are being persecuted.

      • That’s what I don’t get. Regressive Liberals scream bloody murder about conservative talk radio. Mean while they control every other type of media and the U.S. Scholastic System from pre-school to graduate school.

      • It’s in direct proportion to those who are opposing and crying foul, ie, the psuedo christian church and their allies at FRC and other extreme right wing organizations!

      • I do not go to church Jim, but I am a Christian. As a Christian, I do not have a problem with gays being given civil unions, which can be given by the government. Our government is violating our 1st amendment rights, specifically highlighting Christianity, in order to push their liberal agenda.

        Muslims are opposed to pork as well as gays, so Jim, do you think that a muslim business owner that has a restaurant should be forced to serve pork because it is demanded by a gay customer?

      • Again, as I stated in my original comment, civil unions that grant the same level of federal and state protections and benefits as opposite sex marriages, no more or less and not special, were declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I have no desire to make a business owner violate his conscience by participating in my upcoming wedding, as they don’t want the revenue or referrals that would follow. I do, however, expect to be served and treated with respect outside of that event. If I call the police because of someone disturbing my wedding, they have NO RIGHT to refuse to come to disband the disturbance, arrest and charge the perpetrators because of they don’t support my marriage. Nor does the grocer have the right to refuse sales prices to me because I’m gay. The real examples of discrimination based on religious objections are numerous.

      • I think as a Gay man you want to persecute anyone who is opposed to your lifestyle. Gays are on the march to do away with anyones right to oppose them. But then homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Now however they have a soapbox to stand on and they want to be heard. Who cares what happens to the business owners or their creditors. Bla Bla Bla. I know you matter more than they do.

      • You do know That U.S. Catholicism is one of the largest liberal bastions in the world don’t you?

  5. This is a complex issue but it comes down to which right has precedence over the other. Is the right of the person running a small business to have freedom from being a party in something that they think is against their religious beliefs more important or is the right of a NAZI skin head, for instance, to have a cake baked at a given establishment for a hate rally in spite of the anguish it would cause the Jewish proprietor more important? After all, no one should be allowed to discriminate because they do not agree with them. This is not JUST about gays, but the press finds that angle to be delicious.

    • It is not just about gays, but the 1st. amendment rights of any religion. However, being a nazi is not the liberal agenda at this time, but the gay agenda is.

      • LGBT are not merely content with freedom to live as they choose. They have to get right into everyone,s face and demand acknowledgement. This is psychotic behavior. You have the right to put it on display, but others also have the right not to see you.

    • I had a different take than you took. What if a KKK member went to a “Black Bakery’ and wanted a cake made for a Klan Rally the next weekend. What would MSM, Sharpton, Holder, and Obama have to say if the Klan took him to court for refusing to bake the cake??? So you think the ‘Black Baker’ should be forced to bake a cake for the KKK??? No it is no difference in that as it is forcing a Christian to bake a cake or take photos of a Same Sex Wedding, or forcing a Black Person to bake a cake or take photos of a Klan Meeting. One should be able to exercise their “Rights and Freedom” not to participate in something they disagree with Morally, Religiously, Racially, or Philosophically.

    • The 1st amendment does not give freedom FROM religion, it grants freedom OF religion. Meaning citizens are free to follow what ever religion they like and THE GOVERNMENT cannot promote or tell you what religion to get behind.

      • The opinion composed by Justice Souter disagrees with you.

        Each individual has the right to Freely Express themselves, Keep and Bear Arms, and Assemble Peacefully, to list a few. As such, they also have the right to Remain Silent, refuse to Keep and Bear arms, and Stand Apart.

  6. I’m so frustrated by the word “religion” in this debate. Its NOT about “religion” its ONLY about Christians. No one is bothering the muslims, jews, budhists, hindus or any other religion. Its ONLY about Christian beliefs and Christian people. People have been refusing service to people for years. “no shirt, no shoes, no service”!! Why aren’t the nudists protesting about THAT? AND where are the CHRISTIAN leaders? Why aren’t they speaking out?

    • You are right Jennifer, this is an out and out attack on Christian’s in our country and around the world.

      As for the Christian leaders, many of them are now going along to get along.

      Better question is, why are we as Christians standing back and waiting for those “Christian” leaders to do something for us, that we as Christians can do for ourselves?

      Waiting on others to represent us is how our country has gotten into the shape that we are in today.

      We, at some time in the past, stopped being a country ran by we the people, and handed over our power over to corrupt people.

      We have to take back our country, or what we are witnessing now is nothing compared to what is coming in our not to distant future.

      • The Christians have done this to themselves. From Church Leadership.org: Half of all churches in the US did not add any new members to their ranks in the last two years. Is it any wonder?

      • Gee I can’t imagine seeings how their largest competion is the Regressive Liberal U.S. Education System indoctinating centers. Of which there is a captured audience unlike religion.

      • I get that we need to stand up for ourselves…but nobody is going to put me on TV and listen to what I have to say. Our country was founded by LEADERS that stood up for the rest of the Americans. That is what LEADERS do. They should stop being AFRAID of conflict and start FIGHTING.

    • Because they have already been warned by the IRS that if they preach from the pulpit anything the FED Government feels is a threat to GAYS then their tax exempt status will be taken away and they could go to jail and be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act. Our Government wants to use it to force its will upon the People.

      • I’m not talking about preaching it from the pulpit. I’m talking about going on TV or ANYWHERE to stand up for the RIGHTS of Christians. They are afraid. and as long as they are afraid the secularists win.

  7. I was thinking maybe the baker should have done the cake, and charge them double then gave it to their church. Don’t know if they want to force you to do it, then make them pay.

    • People keep expressing these types of sentiments, but that would also be attacked. Why is someone charging double or triple for the same service? In some ways, if someone were to do this, it’d be even worse.

  8. I started working over internet, by doing some basic jobs that only requires from you a computer and internet access and I couldn’t be happier… After six months on this job and i got paid so far total of 36,000 dollars… Basicly i earn about 80 bucks/hour and work for 3 to 4 hrs a day.Best part to whole this thing is that you can manage time when you work and for how long as you like and you get paid at the end of every week. -> gET MoRE iNFO HERE <-

  9. Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

    Thomas Jefferson

    Its only a matter of time until someone uses this to discriminate against Blacks, Jews, or HIspanics. This will divide America.

  10. Nobody should be forced to do something that goes against their conscience. We allowed servicemen who refused to kill during Vietnam and WWII to serve other roles in the service. Why is it only the rights of gay people matter but people who have a constitutional right to their religion be forced to give up theirs?

    • It is not only the rights of gay people… it is the rights of all people.
      gays are not asking for special rights… they re asking for equal rights.

      If you believe that a person has the right to discriminate based on religious belief… would you extend that beyond gays?
      If you are okay with a restaurant refusing to serve a gay couple because it is against the owner’s religious beliefs… would you be also okay with a restaurant refusing to serve a mixed race straight couple because it was against the owner’s religious beliefs?

      • Specify the actual religion and the tenet involved in your hypothetical, then maybe we can all have a meaningful discussion.

      • Are you serious?
        Do you honestly not know US history?
        Are you unaware of decades of people using religion as their argument against race mixing?

        And by the way… let’s forget the history of religious opposition to race mixing for a moment.
        Since the government can not declare what is and is not a religious belief… I can open a restaurant, make up my own religion, and say it is against my religious beliefs to serve short people.

      • I think hou fail to make a distinction between “provide” and “participate.” One cannot just “provide” and art cake, one must participate in its making. The baker sold them many generic cakes, then they asked that they participate in making a special cake for an event that they were religiously opposed and they refused. The same with restaurants, they make many generic dishes, and they would have no reason not to serve. If they ordered a cake with an obviously counter religious theme, then they could be refused, if they just ordered cheese cake, then they would not. Of course, if they just ordered cheese cake, how would the chef know…unless they asked for crossed penis’es or something. I can accept without approving or participating, that is all you will get from me.

  11. From Churchleadership.org: Half of all churches in the US did not add any new members to their ranks in the last two years. Is it any surprise?

      • Louanna : im lost on your point. Overall membership is down except for Mormon and JW’s. That tells me that overall membership is down.

  12. Much of this debate comes from our limited definition of what constitutes religion. If recognized as a belief system that dictates behavior and relies largely upon faith in things that can’t be proved, religion encompasses far more than traditional church-based systems. On that basis, environmentalism is a religion, as is a belief in the sacredness of minority rights, political parties, political correctness, capitalism, despotism or even freedom. Therefore, when we legislate to favor one of these over another, doesn’t matter which one, we become too similar to one of those 3rd world countries we like to condemn for allowing a dictator to force a religion upon its citizens.

    • Good gosh Janet The Founders wrote the constitution to be so simple for anyone to understand. Your diatribe of an explanation seems to show your an attorney or collegiate professor.

  13. “is it fair for someone to be forced to accept a lifestyle choice from another that is inconsistent with their freedom of religion and free exercise thereof ? ” Yes totally fair, their choice to open a business, their choice to work with the public. If the market don’t like your bigoted views, close shop. Rules of the market, corporations don’t want their employees having to deal with your religious beliefs either. Simple as that.

  14. The argument, Mr West, is not about a cry for fairness… it is for equality.
    That is a pretty simple concept, and it is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.
    Your cry about the majority being forced to tolerate the whims of the minority is disgusting in two ways.

    First, it shows, for all your flag waving and claiming to defend American principles, how little you understand American principles and the system of government our Founders made. Our laws are designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities.

    Second, the argument you are making about how unAmerican it is for a minority to force others to accept them is the same argument that was made against civil rights.

      • You should reread it as well.
        It is for “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”… NOT… “All persons, except gays”

        It doesn’t say anything about race or religion either.
        It is about equal protection for ALL

      • SO it is okay to force someone to go against their religious beliefs? Simply allow people not to be involved in an activity which they believe is wrong. It is that simple, if your religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong or simply that marriage is between a man and woman, no one should be able to force you to supply services to a same-sex ceremony.

        Next I do not buy the argument we were born that way. the Kinsey Institute developed a sexual orientation scale. That scale goes from zero (exclusively heterosexual) to six (exclusively homosexual). That same institute also claims no one is born a zero or six. that being said the do not state a birth range on that scale. However if someone migrates from a two to Zero the question becomes why? If the sexual orientation is not a result of birth there is no discrimination, because choices are not covered. If you know the rules and make the choice live with the consequences.

        Look at it like this we have an all volunteer military, now would be fair to allow someone to enlist for an infantry MOS then when they got deployment orders decide they are a conscientious objector. For a real and true answer we need scientific proof that sexual orientation is hard wired and not some type choice or a product of environment.

      • Several things.

        1. I am not arguing about whether homsexuality is ia natural predisposition or a learned behavior.
        While i probably disagree with you, it has nothing to do with this topic and would only distract

        2. No one is forcing you to go against your religious beliefs. You do not have to like gays, straights, blacks, whites, jews, christians, muslims, short people, fat people, whatever.
        But if you CHOOSE to run a business that offers services to the public, there are non discrimination laws that regulate how businesses operate with the public.

        A man’s religion may teach him to hate black people… the government can not force him to not hate black people.
        But if that man runs a business that serves the public, there are laws that prohibit him from discriminating against blacks.
        His argument that having to obey an anti-discrimination law that contradicts his religious beliefs would not hold up because he chose to run a business that served the public.

        It is the same argument being made now to justify discriminating against gays.

        Going back to what you said about choice.

        Opening a business in the US where there are anti-discrimination laws is a choice.
        Your example of joining the infantry and then claiming conscientious objector status is a good analogy.
        You can’t choose to open a business that has to follow certain laws and then complain that you don’t want to follow those laws.

      • To point number 2 actually their have been lawsuits by the government because someone refused to bake a cake, sell flowers, or take photographs. That is just plain wrong.

        The fact it is natural or not goes directly to if it is discrimination or not. That is something that has never been determined. So claiming discrimination should not be allowed without proof.

        “His argument that having to obey an anti-discrimination law that contradicts his religious beliefs would not hold up because he chose to run a business that served the public.”

        The problem is there is no verse in the bible which specifically says anything about blacks. However there are numerous verses in the bible that say specifically that Homoseuxality is wrong. So being forced to have your name or the name of your business associated with a same-sex event is wrong. Sell them meals, rent them houses, sell them anything, but do not demand services for a wedding. There are lines that should not be crossed.

        Tolerance is a two way street. If someone does not want to sell you a cake, flowers, or take pictures get over it. If that is the biggest problem in your life you have it pretty good.

      • Now you are going by the Bible.
        Not every religion follows the Bible.

        And the law, most certainly, can not decide that religious freedom applies only to one interpretation of the Bible.

        If a man can refuse to serve a homosexual because of his religious belief… he should also be able to refuse to serve a black person, a short person, a fat person, an old person… or any other kind of person he can say goes against his religious beliefs

      • So you claim that someone has to leave their religious beliefs at home. Try that argument with a muslim. The government cannot force someone to violate their beliefs when we start that this country is done. Again the Bible does not mention blacks, fat people, or any other type person, it does specifically name homosexual activity.

      • Again you are ignoring that your religious belief is not the only religious belief. Anyone can discriminate against anyone else based on any religious belief they want to claim.

      • I am not missing anything, let a religion that wants to supply services to a samepsex marriage do so. However do not demand that someone that does not want ot based on religion, say no. Is that simple enough. Respect is a two way street, if we politely decline to provide a cake to your wedding, then go to another bakery that will. Leave the government and courts out of it.

        Or pass an amendment that says if it turns out that homosexuality is a choice same-sex marriage goes away that day and can never be brought before congress or the courts again.

      • You’re still deflecting, and you probably know it.
        These laws are directly targeted at the GOVERNMENT, which has been steadily outgrowing its big-boy pants in thumping religions, mostly in the name of force-feeding the debacle of Obamacare down everyone’s throats.
        Denial of PARTICIPATION is only denial of service by proxy.

        You can throw a hissy-fit all day about bad gay wedding outcomes, and imaginary scenarios of gays being thrown out of businesses, and [insert Selma Civil Rights imagery here], but this IS an adult conversation.

        Your selection of what you think the word CHOOSE means is very telling. At any point, at any time, everywhere, people are FREE TO CHOOSE which laws they find just, and which laws they DON’T find to be just, or you wouldn’t have a tenth of the freedoms you now enjoy, which also includes ignoring your OATH of service.

      • This law will allow more than just the discrimination against gays and I think people are looking over that. What about the religions that believe women should not show their hair? I am a Christian woman and I do not cover my head, does this mean it is ok for those select religions to refuse me service? It does not matter that they say it nicely, they may have just been raised with manners. If some one said to me ” I am sorry ma’am I will not serve you” I should just accept it and leave? What if they were the only person in such business in my area? This law is limiting a lot more than just the LGBT community, but because some people have such hate towards LGBT’s they are willing to over look the rest.

      • Please don’t quote ancient studies to support your argument, ie the Kinsey report. The current evidence is overwhelmingly supportive that sexuality is hard wired or at least determined at a very early age. It is no more a choice to be gay than to be straight. As disgusting as you would find it to personally engage in homosexuality, I find it equally disgusting for me to engage in heterosexual intercourse, a literal “throw up moment”!

      • SO how come no one can come up with a cause? They have been looking for twenty-five or thirty years with no theories that got off the ground. It is not genetic, identical twins prove that. Believe what ever you want but until someone can identify a cause it should be considered a choice.

        Unless of course if it turns out to be a choice then same-sex marriage could be outlawed.

      • John, the identical twin story was debunked and found to be a fraud almost immediately upon publishing, simply by asking the supposed twins. In the millennia that have passed since homosexuality appeared in the human experience, if it was a choice or disease as once believed, don’t you think medical science would have pinpointed a cause and therefore an effective treatment by now? Interesting side note, many states now have ordinances against so called “conversion therapy”.

      • SO if it is genetic how can you have one identical twin hetrosexual and one homosexual. Identical twins are born with identical DNA. They start from one egg that splits. So DNA is out, maybe neurological, biological or environmental. So what has been proven false. Identical twins start with the exact same DNA.

      • What part of THE REPORT IS A FRAUD are you not getting? The fraudulent report supports your ideology and vitriolic hatred of people who are different from you, that’s the leg you stand on!

      • I mean what part of the fact that identical twins have the same DNA is fraudulent?

        What part of the fact there are identical twins where on is hetrosexual and one is homosexual is fraudlent?

        Based on that how could it be DNA?

      • There are identical twins I am aware of where one is heterosexual and one is Homosexual. Now by definition they have the same DNA. So if it is DNA please explain how. The most famous set of twins is Alexandra Paul of Baywatch fame and her twin sister Caroline Paul. Alexandra is heterosexual, and Caroline is not. Ther are other examples and that rules out DNA.

      • No it’s not. You have access to the court system. That’s equal protection. You want equal treatment. Which is a different animal entirely. You don;t like that some trees are bigger, or different so you want government to get out the saw.

      • Right now I am more worried about the first. I think the country was just killed. People are now supporting giving the government the right to bring it’s incredible might against a single citizen for merely saying “I, in good conscience, cannot do this.” And the people who are supposedly the most anti-bully are the ones supporting it. Yourself included. Government wants precedence. You give it to them, they’ll use it to fan out into all areas. You may not like the citizen it’s being applied to now, but eventually it will be your turn.

      • You are confusing an individuals rights to exercise his beliefs with non-discrimination laws involving businesses that deal with the public.

        The government can not force you to like gays, blacks, jews, or anyone you don’t what to. You will always have that freedom.

        What you want, however, is special treatment.
        You want your business to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

        You are making the same argument that was made decades ago by businesses that cried about government crushing individual rights by forcing them to allow blacks and whites into the same sections

      • I am not even talking about this. This is just the crack opening the door. I am talking about government taking away our fundamental right as a human to say “No, I am not comfortable doing that.” And you support that. For another human. It’s rape mentality.

      • So you are comparing anti-discrimination laws that regulate businesses with rape?
        And you want anyone to take you seriously?

        You, like others who want to excuse your prejudices, are deliberately arguing that individual rights should somehow be applied to businesses that deal with the public

        Here is a simple question for you to see if you actually mean what you say…

        Do you support the right of a business to refuse to serve blacks if the owner says serving blacks would violate his religious beliefs?

      • No, I am talking about American citizens who can approve of sending the American government against another citizen fore merely saying I cannot do this. And you are one of them. I don’t care about the issue or it’s points. I care about the consequence and that’s what it is.

      • Your refusal to answer my question tells me everything I need to know.

        You can stop arguing that you actually believe that this is about anything more than a desire to discriminate against gays.

      • And you are still not answering my question. Do you support an American citizen being able to inflict the full force of the huge behemoth US government on another citizen for simply saying “I cannot in good conscience do this.”? Because that’s what you are asking for.

      • No.. it is not what I am asking for.
        No citizen is being forced to give up their beliefs.

        If you CHOOSE to run a business that serves the public, you are CHOOSING to abide by the laws that regulate operating a business that serves the public.
        If you WANT to discriminate against some members of the public in violation of those laws… DON’T run a business that serves the public.

        If you choose to join the Army infantry, you don’t get to cry later that you don’t want to go to war because it is against your beliefs.
        If you didn’t want to go to war you should not have chosen to join the Army infantry.
        No one forced you to compromise your beliefs… you chose to put yourself in a position where you might have to compromise your beliefs.

        Businesses that serve the public have laws that restrict their ability to discriminate.
        If you didn’t know that before you started a business, shame on you.
        Don’t ask for special treatment

      • So Catholics are not being forced to purchase birth control coverage under Obamacare in spite of the direct tenant of the Catholic church that states there will be no artificial birth control? Hell, even Catholic men have to purchase it. And Christians are not being forced to purchase coverage for 4 drugs that are abortifacients, hence destroy what their Church believes is a human being? And this young woman cannot even SAY what she THINKS without having her and innocent parties lives threatened and the entire town put in danger? Losing her home and business? Just for stating an opinion? Are we following the same issue? And again, I did not ask you if you thought anyone was having their rights threatened. I asked you if support that notion, because again, regardless of the issue that is being used to arrive at the conclusion, that is the conclusion. Do you want the US government to be able to force citizens to do something against their will for the simple “crime” of saying “In good conscience, I cannot do this.”?

      • You are still confusing citizens with businesses and arguing the false notion that the laws that protect individual rights should be used to exempt businesses from regulations.

      • Who owns the businesses? Robots? Don’t depersonalize. And why is it okay for a business like Apple to condemn and entire state of over ten million people, but it is not okay for a mom and pop pizza shop owner way the heck out in nowhere Indiana to say I don’t like this? What is the difference? Why is it okay for Starbucks to try to get people who just want a cup of coffee to talk about race? And please, answer my question. Are you condoning sending the full force of this behemoth government after your fellow citizen for merely saying, I cannot in good conscience do this?

      • Individuals can say whatever they want and the government isn’t going to stop them… but if you CHOOSE to do business with the public there are separate rules… you don’t get special treatment

        And no, I don’t think it’s okay for any business to deliberately discriminate.
        And while Starbucks “talk about race” idea was stupid… they weren’t denying service to certain people

      • But these businesses are not denying service to certain people. They are saying because of their protected belief, they can’t partake in the action and had to pass. I, in good conscience, cannot do this. Now, I ask again. Are you going to bring the might of the federal government down on the head of your neighbor because he says, I, in good conscience, cannot do this? Are you willing to have that done to you, because when you get what you want, this is precedence to attack all first amendment rights. The bolt will be off the door for the first and the zombies will be storming in to benefit from stripping you of your rights. This time, it’s not your brain they’re after. But by letting them in, you are not in any way ensuring you are going to survive. You might even be next when they’re done with the human being you just targeted them on by calling that person bigot. You might be their next bigot. I am not willing to sacrifice that.

      • You open your comment by saying businesses are not denying services to certain people and then follow by saying that they are.

        And I don’t know how many times you are going to ask the same question, considering I have answered it multiple times… no. I am not going to bring the weight of government (nice hyperbole on your part) down on individuals

      • It is not hyperbole, Brendan. It is consequence. And unfortunately if you get what you want, that is exactly what is going to happen. You are looking at your cause (which I support btw) and you’re so impassioned by what you want because you think it is just, But you are not looking at it like a lawyer or a judge. in order to give you what you want, that’s exactly what they would have to do. Now, the people here are not discriminating against gays. They may LOVE gays and they support their cause. What they are doing is exercising their first amendment right to freedom of religion, saying I am sorry, but my religion believes that is a sin, and I, in good conscience, cannot do that. Much like a Christian woman find she is pregnant and decides not to abort her child because she, in good conscience and in accord of her religion, cannot do that. It has nothing to do with gay other than the gays are the ones on the receiving end, as the child is the one on the receiving end of an abortion. When a woman gets an abortion, it does not mean she hates children. She may love them. She may have them. It’s just at that moment in time, she in good conscience, cannot have that child. It is the essence of the left’s whole choice argument, that you will easily apply to a child, but not to religion. Why do I bring this issue up? Say, you get your law. And in the future, we have a President Mike Huckabee. Or someone like that who is deeply religious, and he decides that if your right to religion can be chipped away, so can a woman’s right to privacy. Not saying he will, not saying anyone will, but if you allow them entry into chipping away the bill of rights, one thing we all know for sure is that greedy politicians wanting as much control as possible will try it. Don’t open the door.

      • You’re not born gay… despite what lady gaga says. You can’t know a person is gay unless they intentionally act in a way that fits the current stereotypes or they tell you they’re gay. Either way a person’s sexuality has to be intentionally expressed to you for you to discern whether a person is gay or straight. If you want to express yourself in a way that I find offensive then don’t be surprised when you are turned away. Being gay is in no way, shape or form the same as the color of a person’s skin. Gays are not like blacks living in the pre civil rights era and there is nothing more disrespectful to those who suffered during that time than the gay activists trying to equate their “suffering” with what those people went through.

      • You completely missed my point.
        I am not comparing blacks to gays.

        I am comparing the mindset and excuses of the bigots who fought to discriminate against them.

      • Let us all know when that happens after the anti-discrimination laws. Be sure to cite a single case, piggy-backing sexual PREFERENCE with race.

      • The issue is irrelevant. It could be anything. Do you support the idea that the government can bring it’s huge might down on the head of an American citizen to force them to do something when all they have said is “I cannot do that in good conscience.” ? Because that is the consequence. Please answer.

      • You see, Obama is telling christians they have to go against their beliefs to make liberals happy. That is unconstitutional. The government was not given that power. That is what separation of chuch and state is about.

      • What you think Obama created the anti-discrimination laws that regulate businesses?
        President Johnson also forced Christians to serve mixed couples, right?

      • Serving mixed couples or different races doesn’t go against biblical teaching.. Homosexuality does. Personally, I would serve them but someone who won’t based on religious conviction should be allowed to refuse.

      • YOUR interpretation of Biblical teaching is not the law of the land.
        And the folks that used to refuse to serve mixed couples used the same defense.. it went against their interpretation of Biblical teaching.

      • Equal Protection The constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. Discrimination is against the law.

      • Do you support using the might of the Federal government against a peaceful citizen simply because he says I cannot do this in good conscience?

      • Neither is religion. Matter of fact, religion is the first one protected, along with speech and press. Yet a Christian business cannot say a word without a deluge of slander, harassment and threats.

      • So now you are just confusing individual rights with regulations on businesses that deal with the public

      • Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…equal protection for the business owner not to be deprived of his life (Labor/time), liberty (Freedom of Religion), or Property (Inventory)

      • The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that the
        right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. An individual’s
        right to believe as they wish DOES NOT override Equal Protection under
        the law for ALL people.

      • You want special treatment to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws that regulate businesses that serve the public.

        If you don’t want to obey laws that regulate businesses, don’t open a business.

      • It isn’t discrimination to turn down a job. Who owns your labor, you or the government. Under the 14th Amendment, your have the right to life, liberty, and property – Life (your time), Liberty (you determine your work), and property (the use of your assets). Maybe you should remember than someone’s desire doesn’t trump my right not to be their indentured servant.

    • I’m pretty sure with your flag-waving uniform-wearing avatar, your sense of irony is impaired.
      I’m CERTAIN your memory of your oath of service is impaired.
      Ten bucks says you haven’t read ANY of the 21 incarnations of RFRA laws, including the Federal one.

      • Actually I have.
        And my opposition to a law that I see as unConstitutional has nothing to do with my oath.

    • Funny how you cry about the 14th Amendment and overlook the 1st. Seems you are a disgusting hypocrite.

      • The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. An individual’s right to believe as they wish DOES NOT override Equal Protection under the law for ALL people. or have you overlooked that???

      • You just said it…EQUAL protection under the law. Not some people have GREATER protection than others because you desire to advance a social cause.

      • Who wants special treatment? I just want the right to self-determination under the 14th amendment. I also have the right to life, liberty, and property. You do not get to tell others that they must provide their time, on your project, utilizing their skills and tools. I think your emotions are getting the best of you.

      • As a citizen you have these rights.
        When you choose to operate a business that serves the public you are choosing to follow laws that regulate those businesses, including non discrimination laws.

        Asking to be exempt from those laws is asking for special treatment.

      • Show me in the Constitution where it says sexual preference is protected. I’ll show you where religious freedom are along with equal rights to life, liberty & property. Not-unequal rights for those the left think are oppressed.

      • The 14th Amendment.
        Show me in the Constitution where the right to religious freedom applies to businesses.
        It’s funny that he courts shot down your argument decades ago when business owners claimed religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate against blacks

      • The Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation has the same rights as an individual but we aren’t talking about corporations A-Hole. We are talking about business owners running small businesses like a sole-proprietorship.

      • Sorry kid. Your childish insults don’t hurt me.
        I know exactly what i am talking about in regards to small businesses and that is why there are anti-discrimination laws that businesses can not get around by claiming their individual religious prejudices carry over to their chosen profession.
        history and facts are not on your side.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

      • Wikipedia is your source….now that’s funny. Try reading the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. You lefties are such sad-sacks.

      • You think Wikipedia is my source?
        Wow.
        I was citing a Supreme Court case.
        I linked the wikipedia page for the case because it contains multiple links to , not just the ruling, but multiple examples of case law that came from it.

        It’s sad that whenever facts are against you think making childish insults about liberals somehow negates facts.

        Your legal argument to discriminate against gays is based on the same nonsense segregationists tried to use… and you’re going to be remembered just the same.

      • …and your morality and steaming pile of socialism is the same as used by the Romans at the end of their empire and you will be remembered the same way.

      • Socialism? The Roman Empire?
        What are you talking about?
        What makes you think the Roman empire was socialist?
        HAHAHA

        What is it you think collapsed the Roman Empire?

      • no,,, the history one can see in the horrible protest about mixed
        marriage… which was only about 40-50 yrs ago…
        the religious beliefs of some that the mixing of any race..
        (but really white and black) was against gods will or law..
        and look.. low and behold,,, the world did not come to an end…
        and look where we are today… happily married people of all races
        living there lives…
        as I feel 20-30 yrs from now,, people will look back at this time
        and wonder what all the hate was about… and how some could have been so stupid and ignorant…
        but then… I will have passed.. I won’t live to see that…
        but my children will..

  15. If I wanted a gay wedding cake, I’d go to a gay baker. I would not ask someone to do something that is so against their beliefs. I’ve always liked Allen West’s common sense approach to the disputes that are really “much ado about nothing”.

    • Yes, in particular because you would want to support the gay bakers business. Which being gay makes a little sense. Much like people in churches supporting church members with their business. This makes me believe these suits are power plays and other means to punish people for not supporting their gay lifestyle. Discrimination if you will for NOT being gay.

  16. Why would any person in their right mind WANT to force someone to bake their wedding cake, provide flowers for or take pictures of their wedding? Seriously? This is supposed to be the most important day of your life, at least for the bride. Isn’t this the one day when you want everything to be perfect? So why would you risk not only substandard service, but depending on the individual, outright sabotage of your special day??? The answer is, YOU WOULDN’T!!! This is about discrimination against Christians!! It’s about vengeance or fame! Yes, it REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE!! This is not about “what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom”. It’s about “let’s push our agenda as loudly as possible”!

    As a Christian photographer, I reserve the right to:

    NOT photograph a gay wedding.
    NOT photograph a polygamist wedding.
    NOT photograph a bachelor/bachelorette party where I know there will be a stripper.
    NOT photograph an event in a strip club.
    NOT photograph an event in a bar.
    NOT photograph anything that includes “flashing”, such as frat parties or spring break.
    NOT photograph ANYTHING associated with the KKK or NAZI ideals.
    NOT photograph a racist event.
    NOT photograph a sexist event.
    NOT photograph a political event.
    NOT photograph ANY event where I or my staff is, or may be, treated inappropriately.

    This is MY business. These are MY bills. Why am I free to turn down ANY of the events I listed, EXCEPT the first one? If the color of your money isn’t green enough for me, who are YOU to tell me that I have to take it???

    • And if you come into my restaurant and I don’t want to serve you because you are Christian… are you okay with that being legal?

      • You wouldn’t know a Christian by his looks unless you ask then you would have to ask all your customers…you’re comparing apples to oranges, it’s not that simple…we are talking about an EVENT which doesn’t jive with the religious FREEDOMS guaranteed to Christians. If you can get the service somewhere else, why would you FORCE someone who doesn’t want to do it and who might out of anger for being forced add some extra goodies to your cake, like buggers, or urine, feces or sperm (well, they may like that one).

      • You are deliberately ignoring my question.
        If it was against my religious beliefs to serve Christians, should i have the legal right to refuse to serve Christians in my restaurant that is open to the public?

      • If you dont want to serve me i will gladly take my business else where. Your food is noth8ng special.

      • I don’t sense any loss for that. Tell me, and a lot of others…. where do you work?

      • As far as I’m concerned you can refuse to serve christians but are you doing it for religious conviction or just to be mean? There is a difference.

      • Absolutely! And I support the right of black business owners to refuse servicing KKK members… Jewish business owners from servicing NeoNazi groups and all kind of situations where a business owner feels offended or threatened by a potential customer’s request. The bigger question is why is the amount of hate and sheer blind rage tolerated generated by gay activists tolerated in our “enlightened” culture? How are any of the tirades offered up by those who are offended by this going to do anything other than illustrate just how necessary laws like this are. The only double standard you are going to find is related to who you can publicly humiliate and threaten without consequence… gays or Christians…

      • So it would also be okay to refuse to serve blacks and jews.

        Ad to why you’re hearing so much griping from gays… That’s probably because there’s so many bigots discriminating against them.

      • You’re living in a world of imaginary, hypothetical bullshit.

        But to answer you, SURE, kick me out.
        And watch how grownups deal with it. We don’t pout and petition the government for the use of force. That’s for PUSSIES.
        We simply let the world at large know that you are an anti-Christian bigot, and take our formidable business dollars elsewhere.
        Done.

      • We don’t pout and petition the government for the use of force. That’s right! We simply…are already in government and sign acts.

      • Brendan, If I come into your restaurant which is open to the public and order off your menu, then no you do not have a religious right to not serve me. However, if I come to you and ask that I rent out part of your restaurant to host a bible study, then yes you would have the right to refuse.

      • NOTE: Last I checked, the moment you even mentioned an atheist having anything slightly resembling a religious belief, they blow up in your face and you end up in a two hour debate until someone decides that the need to pee is more important than some person on the internet you don’t know, probably will never know, nor talk to again, or ever really think for two seconds about after “Ah, that piss felt really good.”.

        What I’m saying is this: It’s not against your religious belief to serve Christians because you have no religious beliefs. As far as you’re concerned on the matter, you’re basically stating this: “What if I really really don’t want to serve a retard?”

        Would you serve someone without a high school diploma because he hated school and decided to drop out, thinking he would become, say, the world’s best strong man in the circus, lives on the street, and the only reason they can afford to eat there is someone gave them the money to after begging a bit? You would? Well, that’s a bit of a change in attitude…

      • I don’t sway either way much more than the other. Both sides are reasonable, but there’s no equilibrium, so I ignore it.

        My true two cents is this: I’m a devout Lutheran Christian. I don’t support homosexuality at all. If I owned a cake shop, I’D BAKE THAT CAKE. Cake is cake, money is money. I don’t agree with you, so I’m going to reject your $700? Please. God says be humble and don’t let money rule your life, but he says nothing about rejecting a person a cake. You’re supposed to treat your enemies nicely… Give them a freaking cake, take their freaking money, call it a day xD

      • Show me in your religious tenets that it is against them to receive money for serving people food for a daily meal….

      • No. I an simply arguing that the owner of my hypothetical restaurant has strong religious beliefs that won’t allow him to do business with Christians.

      • If you are seeking to establish standing for a defense using the RFRA as precedent you will have to convince a court that your religion actually exists and that your assertion that your refusal to serve Christians is not only consistent with the tenets of that religion but also that your participation in that religion is consistent with your previous statements and behaviors. Your hypothetical restaurant that doesn’t serve Christians as a matter of faith is based on an equally hypothetical (read: nonexistent) religion. The reasoning here is as sound as asserting that your faith compels you to kill the current king of France: there is no faith of that nature, and there is no king.

      • And this is why I oppose the law.
        It will put courts in the position of deciding what is, and what is not, a legitimate religious belief.

        That is not something the government should be involved in.

      • No… that’s not how courts work.
        My legal defense will claim a religious right… and the court will be forced to decide if it is legitimate

      • That is exactly how courts work. Your defense will make a claim, in this case religious. The court will not allow a claim to be made without you and your defense being able to substantiate it. Civil procedure, as you learned when you were a 1L, does not allow for frivolous claims offered in the hope they will apply and are persuasive. Further, to make unsupportable claims is referred to as “vexatious litigation” which carries the penalty of criminal prosecution. You claim a religious exemption for something and then cannot support that claim, you can be found in violation of the law.

      • You are actually supporting what I wrote… reread your last sentence.
        how would I not be able to support my claim of religious exemption?
        The court would have to decide that my claim of religious exemption was without merit… they would have to decide whether my religious belief was legitimate.

        That is the courts deciding what religious beliefs are, and are not, legitimate.

      • Read this slowly and sound out the big words. The court will not be called upon to catalog each and every possible religious faith and practice and determine whether your claimed faith conforms with anything in the catalog. And neither will the court be called upon to establish what is a verifiable religious practice and what is not. That will be the responsibility of your defense. If defense counsel merely throws their hands in the air and whimpers “religious exemption,” counsel will be required to explain what why and how. And further, will be required to demonstrate that those particulars are in fact part of an existing and recognized religious practice. What this means is that you cannot make up a choose-your-own-adventure religion and contend it is pertinent. Actually you can. And you will lose.

      • Wow… you are disagreeing with things I never wrote.

        Read slowly.
        I… never… said… the… courts.. .would… catalog … religious… faiths.
        I… did… say… they… would… have… to… decide… the… merits… of… the … religious… belief… being … presented… as… a … defense.

      • If your religion forbids you to serve Christians and you’re going to take the time to question the religion of all your customers, by all means you should abide by your beliefs.

      • And if you worked in a bakery that didn’t have two men in tuxedos holding hands, should someone be able to sue you out of existence for not making some?
        The BETTER question is, would you DEMAND that a kosher deli serve you ham?

      • Would you force a Muslim to serve you non-halal meat or serve you bacon in HIS restaurant against his religious beliefs.

      • i would not force any restaurant to serve me something they did not have on their menu.
        That is not an issue of religion.

        This is not about forcing businesses to provide a product they do not carry.

        If I walk into a restaurant that does not serve bacon and does not have bacon, and I demand bacon… I am wrong.

        But if I walk into a restaurant that does sell bacon to customers, and does have bacon… but refuses to serve bacon to me… they are wrong.

      • Very good, you prove my point that…that a Muslim probably doesn’t have bacon on the menu because it’s against their religion. If a Christian baker doesn’t have gay weddings on their menu, it’s because it’s against their religion…and I would be wrong to force them to do it when those services are available elsewhere.

      • Exactly, the Muslim does not have bacon to offer because it’s against their religion. The baker will probably bake the gays a cake but not decorate it for a gay wedding which is counter to their religion ….same thing…the service is still being provided just not that with religious objections to it…get it.

      • Yes, because there they took the job knowing full well what the restaurant’s menu was and should be required to comply with all the duties of the job. Same as the cashier in Target who recently refused to handle pork products from the grocery section. Target caved and put her in another department. However, if she wanted the cashier job (which she applied for and was hired for) she should have known and have been required to perform all the duties of that job.

      • Let me see if I got this right…you would walk into a Muslim restaurant and demand bacon, right?

      • (1) I wouldn’t walk into a Muslim restaurant because there are other places I would patronize that I know would go along with my way of thinking;
        (2) Don’t you have anything else to do with your time other than spend it on this post?

      • I see we agree…why anyone go to a Christian establishment when there are other places to patronize that would go along with gay marriage.

      • Newp. It hasn’t been legal since 1787. Take off that uniform until you remember your oath of service.

      • Well that was stupid considering none if this has to do with my oath of service.
        But at least you agree that business owners can’t discriminate because of religious beliefs

      • Selling from a Menu or off a shelf is different than providing a personal service or custom product. Sorry, you lose.

      • Wrong hypocrite. It is still about me serving someone if it is against my religious beliefs. Nice try

      • It is a matter of who owns your work and can your be forced into indentured service to another. Everyone is guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and property. Not just some. That means I get to determine how my time will be spent on which project of my own choosing in utilizing my personal assets and training.

      • By whose standard, your’s? Again, that is so fallacious on its face, or we’d still have black lunch counters and white counters.

      • You flunked reading comprehension, go back to school. Your liberal education is showing.

      • Thank you! Now take your panty-waist, tech school certificate and union card, and sit down until you have something intelligent to add to the conversation.

      • Thank you. Now take your panty-waist, tech school certificate and union card, and sit down until you have something intelligent to add to the conversation.

    • Do you have the right to turn down business from someone who is Jewish? Someone who is black? Someone who is handicapped? Exactly where is the line in your sand? ps- Being gay is not illegal. Many of your examples are illegal. I’m an atheist. That wold never stop me from taking money from people with religious beliefs. It’s a non-issue from me even though I think it’s crazy that someone believes in a God.

      • Most of the items on the list are not illegal. In fact, the only one that is illegal is a polygamist wedding unless it is just a ceremony with no marriage license like they do in Utah.

  17. Jason christians don’t try to force their lifestyle on anyone. We are told to spread the word and we do but noone forces you to listen, accept or live by it. That’s between you and God.

    • So go to secular bakers for your cakes. THAT’s freedom. To choose what businesses get your money. The government isn’t allowed to do that FOR you.
      A freedom-loving person would realize the greatest freedom is freedom FROM government. Words mean things.

      • Which is their choice, but I decry it.
        The federal government has an RFRA law, so why didn’t the big grandstanding corporation move its work to China THEN?
        Oh, because it wouldn’t get the feelgood PR of acting like these laws haven’t been around for 25 years. It was just a good excuse to move American jobs to CHINA —- that bastion of human rights.
        Do you REALLY think this corporation was acting out of CONSCIENCE?
        I call horse crap.

        They chose to move their business to CHINA. Factor that in.

      • No, they are not. It is all political BS. A publicly traded company is never going to choose not to do business on an moral basis because they have no morals, most even lack any real ethics. You just tout the opinions that match your political agenda and call the other side names for their opinion.

      • Publicly traded companies have an corporate image to protect and trademarks to promote. Bigotry just doesn’t sell. Not if you want mainstream appeal.

      • They sell to everyone just like arms dealers and drug dealers…it has nothing to do with bigotry.

    • um…. no it’s not. The wording of the Constitution was not haphazardly written. The wording was very carefully chosen.

      Freedom OF religion = the right of every individual to follow their own religious beliefs and can not force a religious belief on the people nor interfere in their practice of their chosen belief.

      Freedom from religion is not anywhere stated in the U.S. Constitution nor any of the 50 separate state Constitutions.

      I know many athiests and none have a problem with public religious displays, They say it is a extremely small minority (less than 1%) that rant and moan about anything religious who simply just want to cause trouble because the enjoy pissing people off. Just like all the other progressive liberal extremest groups just enjoy their little ego trips but when the shoe is on the other foot whine and scream how unfair it is.

      • “Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite.
        The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non religion.

        [Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 1968.]”
        ― Abe Fortas

      • Oh yes it is stated pretty clearly. “Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Seems pretty clear to me. Freedom from religion. All religions or lack thereof is equally protected by the law.

      • When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
        —Justice John Paul Stevens

      • When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion, it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs.
        A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some over others.
        — Harry Blackmun, SCOTUS, Majority Opinion, Lee v. Weisman, 1992

  18. We are Christians make fools of ourselves over issues such as this. We may not like, nor approve of homoselxual behavior, but we also may not approve of couples living together before marriage, etc. Are we going to be consistent and interrogate every customer about their lifestyle? If we object to alcohol, are we going to ask if anyone has been drinking before we sell them a pizza? On it goes and we lose.

    • What if serving adulterers is against your Christian beliefs. A lot of those pontificating would have some trouble justifying their own sexual proclivities. Doesn’t Jesus say “those without sin cast the first stone”.

    • Keep in mind these business’s that were attacked and used constantly as examples had served people in the LGBT community they didn’t object to selling them anything in their store. It was the special circumstance of a religious objection to a same sex marriage and the gay couple wanting the baker/photographer to make their wedding cake/take wedding photos to something that is well known against their personal religion.

      I kind of laugh knowing all this is doing is making more people turn on the progressive liberal crazy train this country’s been on where the micro minority bullies the nation.

  19. Whether you believe in 6 billion years of random selection or 6 days of divine creation, the only natural union is between a male and female.

  20. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute.The Court has stated that “Laws are made for the government of actions,
    and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions,
    they may with practices.” For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one’s belief in vampirism, but not the practice. Your freedom to believe does NOT override equal protection of the laws for all people.

    • Then a Kkk member should be able to demand that an Afican-American should be forced to bake a theme cake for a hate rally or be forced out of business. Legal or not, that is just wrong.

  21. My opinion may not be a popular one, but I really do believe that situations such as the one with the baker could be avoided with a simple questionnaire/application for ANYONE requesting a cake. NOT a lifestyle questionnaire, but rather a questionnaire about the event. “Name of Bride and Groom”, “Location”, “Date of Service”, “Is this your first marriage”, “Will there be dancing?” “Will there be alcohol?” Caterers and Wedding Planners do this kind of thing, so I don’t see it being a big deal. If the baker, photographer, caterer, or wedding planner determines that the event conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs, they can simply say “My schedule is full on the date you requested.”

    • Stephanie, that’s a good idea, but what if the gay couple “suspects” that the caterer/baker whomever is giving them the snub…if they really wanted to be militant, they might send another person/couple with the same date to see if the baker/caterer is snubbing them..

  22. If a place of business feels so strongly (religious conviction) against serving LGBT people… then maybe they should have it on their menu,,, or a sign in the window..
    or in an ad in the paper,, or where they advertise..
    then all of the public would know…
    save a lot of tense or embarrassing confrontations….
    business lost is business lost,, business gained is business gained..
    People are always quacking about letting the free market decide..
    well,, let em decide..

  23. So…where are the LOONS protesting when a divorced person is wanting a cake or adulterer…one sin is no greater than the other!!

    • The insect that maintains that website should take Martin Luther King out his dirty mouth. And teach that ignorant rodent there is no such thing as “evolutionism”.

      • Evolutionism is a religion.

        1. Evolution was invented by Anaximander 2,500 years ago as an extension of the Gaea, Mother Earth, religion.
        2. The entire universe, viable and nonviable alike, has always devolved, the exact opposite and excluder of evolved.
        3. Every event in this universe is a devolutional event because some of the
        converted energy is lost to future events.

        Biology eliminates evolution.

        See: http://originalitythroughouttheuniverse.com/

      • “Evolutionism” is not even a word in the dictionary. Whoever the morons who published that website doesn’t know that there are identical twins in the World. One cell separates in two creates two human being with indistinguishable DNA. Science and religion are two different things. Learn the difference.

      • An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.
        Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.
        Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

      • 1. An overwhelming majority of scientists used to believe in bleeding as a treatment. See George Washington’s death.

        2. A vast majority of German scientists once believed Jews were non-human.

        3. If any dare question their dogma they are intellectually slaughtered. See https://www.icr.org/article/4162/

        4. Do you support the Supreme Court decision on Dred Scott.

        Please post your VERY best proof of evolution.

      • Yes, and so MANY people thought that hanging accused witches was right, that 19 people were hanged in Salem. (Some voices spoke against this, but not enough, soon enough.) NOW, intelligent scientists, accomplished in their professions, are being fired from their jobs because they don’t believe in evolution.

        Sir, please get some of the information that the majority, or at least the powerful, in Academia are trying to keep away from you.

        Here’s one, of very many, places to get the other side of the controversy: http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video. It’s a movie, 44 minutes. How many hours and pages of anti-creationist materials have you seen? One is not educated unless he has seen both sides of the evidence.

      • Definition of “-ism” at Dictionary.com:

        a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs ( baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. ( criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism; intellectualism).

        Examples:
        Creation-ism: belief in creation
        Evolution-ism: belief in evolution
        Darwin-ism: belief in Darwin’s teaching (of evolution)

      • True. But I gather that you’ve never had exposure to the evidence on the other side. I’ve been following this controversy for over 20 years, and I think I’ve gotten a pretty good exposure to both. Evolution doesn’t work in the real world, Rafael. May I share why? Here’s one particularly good presentation of evidence for a supernatural origin of life; it’s 44 minutes long. Since you’ve likely had many, many times that exposure to why evolution is THE scientific view, why not spend 3/4 of an hour looking at the other evidence? http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video

    • Hold on there, insectman. Painting all Muslims as “rabid dogs” is untrue, unfair and — as you know, we all stand before Jesus Christ and give an account for every idle word we say! Yes, some Muslims follow the Koran to the point that they’d kill us if they couldn’t convert us. But it isn’t fair to say that of all Muslims.

      • Sister Sharon: You just added a new categorey to the following list of reality deniers. You are an (though well intentioned) uniformed foolish Christian.

        Until now, the list had three categories. Only a fool or someone who is
        intentionally ignorant or someone who is brain-washed or someone who is a liberal—wait, the word “liberal” is a synonym for each of the first three categories—does not realize that Islam is at war with America. Actually, they are at war with the world. They know that if America falls, the rest will too. Any Muslim who is not a strong believer in Jihad is the same as a lukewarm (or fake) Christian. He is not following what his Book says. See http://www.insectman.us/misc/islam-insanity.htm

        Here is the reality you need to understand Sharon:

        http://www.barenakedislam.com/
        http://www.jihadwatch.org/
        http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

    • 38 other states have laws similar to Indiana’s and you don’t attack them. This attack on the state of Indiana is a political ploy to divert attention from world events and to advance an agenda.

      • divert attention from world events??
        wow… didn’t hear about that….
        and the agenda would be??

      • Actually Indiana’s is of another level because “the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches,” and “second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person…”

  24. Can you imagine owning a home and using it as a bed and breakfast business and in walks Garry and Larry and they want to spend a week end consummating their recent nuptials in a bedroom in your home? And you as a moral Christian have to rent them that room?

      • So your implying that the people that started abolltion movement to free the slaves 150 yrs ago were not moral people.

      • Don’t forget the Christian slave owners who quoted the Bible to justify the keeping of slaves.

      • Muslims were and are the biggest slave traders of all. But no one attacks them . Muslims stone women and subject their women to female genital mutilation, and you don’t attack them. Muslims throw homosexuals off of buildings and hang them in their countries but you don’t attack them. WHY?

      • What are you talking about?
        What makes you think I don’t oppose muslim slavers?
        Of course I do.
        That was crazy.
        You were talking about christians and slavery and I responded to that.

      • Southern plantation owners that used the Bible to justify slavery were wrong. They kept people from their freedom. Just like the tyranny of those that would force another group operate their property ,time and talent against their religious convictions. This country was founded on religious freedom.

      • And in time, as a Christian, your atttitudes and practices will be shown to be just as wrong. Using the Bible to justify ostracism and marginalization of the gay community.

      • All citizens have the same god give rights stated in the US bill of Rights and the US constitution.

      • Yes… southern plantation owners who used their religion to justify slavery are remembered as wrong.

        And yes. this country was founded on preserving individual liberty, including freedom of religion.

        But there are regulations governing how you operate a business that deals with the public.

      • The majority of this nation is Christian and I challenge you to prove otherwise. It was founded on Christian principals by immigrants fleeing religious persecution. Read some history.

      • Who cares how many Christians there are? Constitution says Congress shall not pass any laws establishing religion. That is any religion.

      • Should we then force a muslim restaurant owner to serve pork or cater parties for homosexuals?

      • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Read the whole thing.

      • you are right about the majority part,,,
        but we still are not a christian nation,,,
        we were founded on christian values… but that’s pretty much it…

      • When I use the term “Christian Nation” I only mean the majority call themselves Christian and or are practicing Christianity. Not that it be the established religion. Most American’s are practicing a secular humanism with an emphisis on material worship.

      • “practicing a secular humanism with an emphasis on material worship.”

        links to that?,,, or is that just what you feel is going on?

      • you’re an idiot. all this false equivalence. read another book. you’re obviously very young. you don’t want to discuss the muslim issue because you hate christians. your agenda is to just bash people of faith. one day, you will be a person of faith. here is the real point, you must allow each person liberty to do as they want. if you limit my liberty to have yours, is that ok? it’s a very selfish argument to think only gay people have rights to do anything at all. or black people or anyone can trample the rights of someone else. like he said, your right to throw a punch stops at my nose.

      • You have obviously not been following the news and the outrage over such behavior in Muslim countries. And as a Christian, I’m outraged to think that you categorically dispense such drivel as to think that this is an attack only on fundamental Christianity.

  25. How about if a muslim meat market had to offer pork sausage because it’s not fair to the athiests in the city who like pork sausage or pork loin?

  26. Here’s a newsflash. Being a Christian is a choice, being gay is not. You want to discriminate against gay people? Change religion or change your business.

    • Provide proof homosexuality is not a choice. There have been hundreds of theories as to the cause of Homosexuality yet not one ounce of scientific proof it is not a choice. Provide proof if you make a claim.

      • All the gay people in the closet are a proof. If the lifestyle is a choice why just not do it, would be easier than hiding. You are another proof. What would it take to coerce you into an homosexual act? Do you think any psychologist could make you gay with therapy? What makes you think it works the other way around? Some countries punish homosexuality with death and they still find gay people to execute. What about those who kill themselves because they can’t accept their homosexuality. You think these people would risk their lives if they had a choice? The proof is all around it doesn’t need to come from me.

      • None of that means anything it is all based on emotions, not facts. I want a definitive scientific answer, not warm fuzzy feelings.

        “What about those who kill themselves because they can’t accept their homosexuality.”

        It may be because of things other than homoseuality, mental disorders are rampent in this country. Better people through better chemicals.

      • Why don’t you give me your facts? You did not answer any of my questions? Fact is LGBT youths have the highest rates of suicide attempts among all groups of people. A gay teenager is 4 times as likely to attempt suicide then an heterosexual kid the same age. It’s a fact. Why do you think that is?

      • “Fact is LGBT youths have the highest rates of suicide attempts among all groups of people. A gay teenager is 4 times as likely to attempt suicide then an heterosexual kid the same age. It’s a fact.”

        That could be a sign of mental illness. So what proves they are born that way. If there is abnormal depression among homosexuals that could mean they do not even believe it is normal.

      • Or people like you could be a source of that abnormal depression. You are still deflecting by the way. What can coerce you into an homosexual act?

      • Not a thing and that does not mean it is hardwired, there are plenty of weak minded people in this world. Homosexuals are like a bunch of four year olds stomping their feet because they did not bet something they want. If they are going to throw a fit because someone want well them a cake they have a real mental problem.

        Although I will admit I think liberal in general are weak minded fools who should be institutionalized.

      • Their are people that claim they were reporgramed. Now they may or may not be telling all the facts, but I see no reason for a person to lie in that situation, nothing to really gain. there are also adult children of Same-sex couples that are speaking out against same-sex marriage.

      • And what is better for a child? Two gay professionals with an empty children room who can love the child and provide everything he needs. Or a heterosexual couple of crackheads who will send the kid to deal in the corner as soon as he can walk?

      • If a person chooses to be gay that has to mean that you chose to be straight…or we all have a choice of being gay…..don’t know about you but I don’t find men attractive

      • Some behaviors are learned, I am old enough that there were very few gay characters in movies or television shows. It was not in your face every day. As I said in another post there are people with weak minds out there that can be influenced.

      • There are mass murders on TV every day too. Meth cooks and criminal bikers are the heroes on some TV shows. Does that make more people buy motorcycle or cook meth?

      • It may well inspire some. Look at the guy that shot up Sandy Hook he reviewed other school shooters while planning his attack. No one checks that because if it proved to be true then the big money people in Hollywood may well be held accountable.

      • Exactly which gene is the straight gene, John? Or is that just “hard-wired” at conception? It has taken millennia for people to overcome those “theories” about cause and effect, and recent scientific studies have shown that sexuality is not a choice. There is a huge difference between someone who is born gay, and believe it or not (and I’m honest enough to admit there are folks who fall into this category) choose to engage in homosexual behavior, prison and men who are isolated from women as in long deployments, and just to experiment. The prohibitions in the Old Testament all point to practices related to fertility cults and idol worship. And to stop the nonsensical argument, God Himself says in Ezekiel that Sodon was destroyed for their lack of hospitality/compassion for the foreigner among them, and their treatment of widows and orphans. What the men of that city did was rape the angels, which noone is arguing should be acceptable.

      • “Exactly which gene is the straight gene, John? Or is that just “hard-wired” at conception? It has taken millennia for people to overcome those “theories” about cause and effect, and recent scientific studies have shown that sexuality is not a choice.”

        It is not genetic, look at the examples of identical twins where one isheterosexual and one is homosexxual. Since identical twins come from one single fertilized egg, they start with the same DNA.

        “God Himself says in Ezekiel that Sodon was destroyed for their lack of hospitality/compassion for the foreigner among them, and their treatment of widows and orphans.”

        First Sodom was destroyed in Genesis for sin. This is from Genesis 18:

        20 And the Lord said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. 21 I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

        It was sin.

        Next you completely ignore the statements about homosexuality in the New Testament. Matthew 19:1-8 in verse 4 Jesus states marriage is between a man and woman

        Or Romans 1:18-32. look at verses 26 and 27 specifically address the act of Homosexual sex.

        How about 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, in verse 9 the word fornicator is used. It is translated from the Greek word “pornos” which refers to male prostitutes having sex with men.

        Look at Galatians 5:19, the word fornication, that is translated from the word “porneia”, that word covers adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbinasim, intercourse with animals, and all other items along that line.

        There are at least seven other passages dealing with the homosexual behavior.

      • Stop referring to identical twin studies that are bogus. Personality is not genetic yet identical twins have differing personalities. Characteristics are woven into our being thru other means than genetically,,John.
        Secondly, God calls it sin in Genesis 18, and in Ezekiel He states, “This is the sin of your sister Sodom: they were proud and arrogant, mistreated the foreigner among them, and neglected the widows and orphans.” Did he forget all about the faggots that lived there? Again, the raped the messengers at Lot’s house, and nobody is advocating for homosexual rape. Thirdly, in the Old Testament, every prohibition relates to behavior involved in fertility cults, including child sacrifice and idol worship. And finally, in the new testament, the Greek language (my second major in college was biblical languages) has no word for homosexuality or homosexual. So, Paul quoined the phrase from the Septuagint rendering of Leviticus meaning man with man, again referring to the cultic fertility practices. And finally, the remaining new passages allhave been translated at one time or another as effeminate, girly, etc. Homosexual doesn’t show up in the English translation until the 50’s. (Coincidence, I don’t think so). The actual translation refers to vanity, in that a man would care ore about how he looks outwardly than the condition of his heart.
        With the tools to learn available to us today, I’m surprised more people don’t question what they hear that the Bible says, and learn how to study it themselves.

      • I am not worried about the old testament. I go by what the New Testament says. So you are saying that you know more than all the biblical scholars out there. the word Fornication in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is translated from the Greek “pornos” which pertains to male prostitutes having sex with other males. The for the word fornication in 1 Corinthians 6:18 comes from the Greek word “porniea” which describes homosexuality among other things. Look it up.

        Or Romans 1:26:27 where is actually describes homosexual activity.

        Now you are trying to tell me you are a better authority that the hundreds of people that have devoted their entire lives to studying the text in the original ancient Greek. Why should I believe you over the people with PHD’s in this subject that say that this is the correct institution?

  27. The reality is that there is to be a separation between church and state. You can believe in whatever religion you want to believe (the same one that once said African Americans could not vote, for instance), but you cannot require others, through federal legal protection, to believe or abide by it as well. A small business has every right to apply its religious beliefs to its business model (that has never been challenged), but don’t whine when consumers refuse to patronize them because they don’t agree. As society evolves and expands its view on civil rights, it begins to demand new things from its suppliers. Homosexuality is simply beginning to be understood as something that is not evil or threatening to a Christian, “white picket fence” America. It’s merely something that’s seen as human beings born differently than most who are just as entitled to the same rights and protections as any other American. The fact that you still believe that members of the LGBT community have chosen to be something that generates discrimination, hatred, disgust, and exile is just laughable by now. Educate yourself, for God’s sake.

  28. How would you feel about the religious freedom of a Muslim taxi driver who refuses to take a disabled person because they have a service dog? According to Islam dogs are impure, would you support that driver’s religious freedom? His right to discriminate against a disabled person due to his religion?

  29. The Conservative Hammer If your lifestyle requires you to file malicious lawsuits targeting people and forcing them to serve you – even when you have dozens of alternative choices – you may be a Regressive Fascist…. JUST SAYIN.

  30. How is someone born a bi-sexual? Or a “transgender”? The tripe people talk about deviant behaviors is hard to fathom. Would the same folks argue that those adults who are attracted to young children should get a free pass because they can’t help it? Or folks who have sexual relationships with their siblings – should that be allowed since they can’t help having those feelings? A guy in Ireland just got prosecuted for having a sexual encounter with his dog. Why is that wrong? Who decides? GLBT is no more a “community” than the incestuous community, the pedophile community, or the bestiality community – all are deviant behaviors. Period.

    • If you can’t understand how someone can be born gay… can you also not understand how people can be born straight?
      It’s the same thing.
      I’m straight… but I didn’t make a choice.
      There was no point in my youth where i sat down and looked at a photo of a naked woman and a photo of a naked man and thought for a while and then decided.

      If we were born straight, why is it so difficult to understand that someone can be born gay?

      Also comparing homosexuality to bestiality and child molestation is absurd.
      If you can’t see the line, I’ll tell you what it is… consenting adults.
      That’s the line.
      Consenting adults.

      • Sir, you and I were both born straight because God created us that way. Homosexuality is a perverted choice of the God-given desires we are born with. And the Bible in Leviticus 20:10-16 seems to put adultery, bestiality, incest, and homosexuality all on the same plane.

      • Leviticus also prohibits the eating of shellfish but I don’t see any laws trying to shut down Red Lobster restaurants.
        Leviticus also prohibits wearing clothes made from one material and I don’t see laws banning clothes that are made from a mix of polyester and cotton.

        It’s a funny coincidence that the people who cite the Bible to justify their beliefs always ignore the parts of the Bible that don’t fit their beliefs.

        Regardless, this is the United States and it is unConstitutional to force others to live by your religious beliefs.

      • You need to research the New Testament. Leviticus is the Old Testament. Stop advertising what you do not know.

      • You should pay attention
        Did you read the conversation?
        Did you see why I cited Leviticus?

        I only mentioned Leviticus because I was responding to a comment by someone else who brought up Leviticus.

      • And it is also unconstitutional to decide how I can worship my God. If I say that making said cake would go against worshiping my God, then Constitutionally I have the right to politely decline. I am tired of others telling me how I can and cannot worship my God in a country where I am supposedly free to worship him with no prohibition.

      • Incorrect.
        As a private citizen, your right to practice and preach your religion is protected.
        But when you CHOOSE to operate a business that serves the public, you are are choosing to follow laws that regulate those businesses… including anti-discrimination laws.

        A religious man may be a pacifist and the government can not force him to fight.
        But if he chooses to join the Army, he can’t complain that he has to fight.

      • I don’t care if it’s in the old testament, the new testament, the koran, the torah, dianetics, the bhagvad gita, and the Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy.

        The United States Constitution does not allow you to force others to live by your religious beliefs

      • The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is a great alternative to the bible IMO haha and EXTREME PROPS on throwing that in!

  31. One day, I hope everyone will realize how futile it is to hate and discriminate against those who only love, regardless of who they love. As long as they cause no harm, what is the point? There are far greater evils out there, just look in the news. Innocent people dying in warfare. People starving to death. Children dying of treatable diseases. People getting raped or sold into slavery. Those are some of the true evils of the world, and if humanity as a whole cannot recognize the difference between true harm and harmless differences, then we will stagnate as a society and accomplish absolutely nothing.

    • Gays aren’t being oppressed you dope! People of Christian morality are simply refusing to take any part in their false marriages.

      Scenario 1: Gay couple asks Christian baker for “wedding” cake. He refuses based on his beliefs

      Scenario 2: Gay couple asks for Birthday cake as one of their birthdays is coming up. The Christian baker makes one for them, no problem.

      Every heavily publicized case is essentially the same as this! Be it the baker, the Indiana pizza store, whatever.

      • What about scenario 3C: Mixed race couple asked for wedding cake. Business refuses due to religious objections.

      • Does this even happen nowadays is the question. I don’t think so. Name one time because if it did it would have been really heavily publicized.

    • it is not bigotry to disagree with a lifestyle. it is not bigotry to deny service because you don;t believe the act being glorified should be glorified. it is bigotry when a group of people think that because they have a different sexual orientation, they should be treated in a special way without having to reciprocate.

      • So you would take no offense if I saw you wearing a cross and told you, you were not welcome in my restaurant?

      • THEY DONT WANT TO be treated in a special way….they want to be treated the same as YOU are treated

      • that is the same argument people made when they refused to serve mix race couples… that they weren’t being bigots… mixed race couples were forcing their lifestyle on others

  32. Gays are the most intolerant people. They have a need to force their lifestyle down everyone’s throat. Having a cake made for you is not a constitutional right. Nobody can force another person to service them….that is called slavery.

      • No one is forcing you to be gay so quit crying that a lifestyle is being forced on you.
        you are making the same arguments that bigots made years ago against mixed race marriages… and history will remember you just as kindly.

      • No one is forcing you not to cater a gay wedding….only hate filled instigators like you can’t understand the difference.

      • I don’t need to.
        History is going to push your bigotry aside the same way it has pushed other bigotries aside in the past

      • LOL, typical leftist. wants to call everyone a bigot just for standing up for freedom. The problem with leftists is they want to push their agenda on to EVERYONE! That is not FREEDOM.

      • No… you’re standing against freedom.. and I don’t call everyone bigots… just bigots.

        You’re the same as the lunatics that stood in front of the public schools in Mississippi to stop black children from entering… because they believed integration was the government attacking their freedom to discriminate and forcing their agenda on everyone.

      • How is agreeing with religious FREEDOM against freedom??

        There is no comparison with this and black segregation….besides, the democrats were and are the biggest bigots of them all.

      • Yes… the democrats were bigots… so?
        you’re just trying to distract.

        And I am not comparing black segregation with gay rights.
        I am comparing the mindset of hate filled bigots who hid behind religions to justify their hate… both of whom believe that allowing equality for people they hate was an attack against their own freedom.

      • LOL, you accuse me of trying to distract when it is YOU trying to compare blacks with gays and you can’t handle my response. I see you can’t answer my question. How is agreeing with religious FREEDOM against freedom??

        There were many religious people who stood by blacks….most of the ones who didn’t were democrats. Also, thee are many hate filled bigots out there who are not religious.

        Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, your hate runs deep in your veins, You want everyone in the country to be forced to think and act as you leftists do…sorry, that is not FREEDOM.

        Dinesh DSouza says it best…..

        A Christian forced to compromise his religious beliefs has no choice in the matter but a gay couple looking for a service can GO ELSEWHERE

      • Wrong.
        I don’t care about Democrats and Republicans… you were trying to distract when YOU brought political parties into this.

        And try to understand this…
        I am not comparing race and sexual preference… they are not the same thing.

        BUT I am comparing the mindset of the bigots who oppose them because they are the same.

        Waaah… the government is not allowing you to deny equality to other people and you think that is an attack on YOUR freedom.
        That is pathetic.

      • Oh look, seems Brendan is now part of the fascist gay mafia who wants to force everyone to follow along like mindless dweebs!

        The mindset of those during segregation isn’t comparable!! Gays get served everywhere!! They can eat cake and eat pizza, just not at a gay wedding! Nobody should have to be forced to serve at a gay wedding if it is against their religious beliefs!! Take your business elsewhere for that! It’s a free country and there are other businesses to choose from.

        You have no idea of what FREEDOM is…..I’ve never seen such hate, vitriol, and fascism from any single group of people in America as I’ve seen from the Gay Mafia.

        I am done wasting my time on a hate filled fascist like you. Go complain about how everyone must abide by your rules to someone else who can stomach your nonsense.

      • HAHAHA… fascist gay mafia?
        Wow… you are deluded

        You think fascists ideology is about wanting equal treatment?
        HAAHAHA

      • You’ve made it clear.. Like really clear yet they have what I’m going to assume is reading comprehension issues and other learning disabilities from many years of breeding within the family. A lot of small irrelevant southern towns have that problem and its sad.

      • Like West said, if he walks into a restaurant his two defining characteristics are black and male. You know nothing else about him.

        And you are a complete effing clown if you are trying to equate what blacks went through to a bunch of HIV infested fairies not getting a cake baked for them….in what probably amounts to only 5 or 6 businesses refusing to bake a wedding cake for gays.

        That is what is so dumb about your liberals freaking out about this. Virtually nobody owns a cake shot and maybe 2% of them are not baking cakes for gays. Seriously, quit being a little Bich.

        If someone didn’t want to serve me for whatever reason, I would laugh and walk out. But fagits like you are so insecure and get soon offended. Get a life.

      • Learn how to read.
        I am not comparing race with sexuality.
        I am comparing the mindset of the bigots who opposed them.
        And you have to be a complete moron if you think the gay struggle for equal rights is over a cake shop and that this new law upsets those of us who care about the Constitution because of a cake shop.

      • History is going to punish our bigotry? LOL, what does that even mean? It is so vague.

        I don’t mind being a bigot. They are largely a group of HIV infested perverts. Who cares? And they make up like 1% of the population…so they are irrelevant.

        Here is a fun fact: at current HIV epidemic rates… 50% of all college aged gay men right now will have HIV in 30 years.

        Now here is the crazy part. LGBT organizations under Gay inc. don’t even have HIV on their agenda list as far as combatting it goes. Number 1 on that list is gay marriage because it is a money maker because it is highly marketable. So you have HIV being pushed to the side, while many gay men continue to get infected at high rates, just to make money off the whole gay marriage thing.

      • Mike, please site your source of a legitimate medical research article. I believe your “fun fact” is a bunch of hooey spread by your fellow brethren.

    • Amazing how liberals say that Christians hate gays. It just shows how they are bigoted against Christians and how little they understand Christians. Christians think marrying someone of the same sex is against God’s word and anything any of us do against God’s word is harmful to the individual and to those around us. Even so, Christians in America are not saying they want to stop anyone from doing what they want to do but instead they do not want to be a party in what others do when they are disobeying God’s word. If someone wanted to commit suicide or kill his neighbors and I knew it, I could not stop them but I surely would not sell them dynamite. Basically, I think it is a sin but if you want to sin go ahead, I can not stop you but please do not make me part of your sin, I have enough of my own.

      • If Christians are not trying to stop them and have such a live and let live attitude… why have Christians been organizing and promoting (and voting for) laws that allow discrimination against gays and prohibit gay marriages?

        Gays are not bigoted against Christians any more than blacks in the South were bigoted against the Klan.

      • Most Christians would allow Gay unions as legally binding just as a marriage is but they do not want it to be called a marriage.

      • Why?
        Churches don’t have to perform weddings.. .so religious marriage is protected.
        Why can’t a gay couple get married by a judge in a banquet hall?

        You don’t have to like it.
        You can say it’s wrong and it isn’t a real marriage.
        You can believe whatever you want and tell as many people you want.

        But when you actively try to stop them from being allowed to do it, you are crossing the line.

        This is America.
        You don’t have to like how your neighbors live but you don’t get to outlaw it just because you don’t like it.

      • That works both ways. Intimidating people who don’t share your beliefs is foolish and plain wrong headed. If all who don’t think businesses should be forced to comply, rise up and try intimidating gays, they’ll go to prison. Why should those intimidating Christian business owners not be arrested?

      • Oh. When you mentioned threat of prison, I thought you meant government intimidation…. not the harassment from some horrible individuals.

        Yeah. The people that harassed and threatened those bakers were horrible and I hope they all get punished in court.

        I’m sure you feel the same way about all the people who have threatened and harassed gays, right?

      • “Churches don’t have to perform weddings.”

        Oh but Brendan, but they WILL have to. Surely you can see the pandora box opening.

        If a bakery or pizzeria MUST cater to gay weddings by the rule of law or be called out for discrimination, then logically, eventually the argument can be made that Churches MUST marry gay couples.

        A good lawyer will easily be able to force the issue based on these
        types of situations if this continues. Follow this to it’s logical
        conclusion and you’ll understand why Christians feel threatened.

        I only see the militant gay community going after and bullying peaceful Christians as opposed to the truely bigoted religious factions such as Islam. I suppose they know Islamists will react a bit differently than “tuning the other cheek”.

        A good lawyer will easily be able to force the issue based on these types of situations if this continues. Follow this to it’s logical conclusion and you’ll understand why Christians feel threatened.

        “You don’t have to like how your neighbors live but you don’t get to outlaw it just because you don’t like it.”

        Come on Brendan nobody is trying to outlaw anything. Christians, like every other religious faction in this country, simply want to use their very first freedom outlined in the Constitution, “Freedom of Religion”.

      • ABSOLUTELY WRONG

        Show me where, in the entire history of the United States, the government has forced churches to perform ceremonies they did not want to.

        Let me help you…
        Decades ago, in parts of the South, there was a violent backlash against integration, and many churches refused to integrate as well.
        It got so ugly that the government had to literally force integration on the people against it by using troops. Federalized National Guard troops had to force segregationists to accept integration and literally escorted black students into white schools and held back segregationists.

        Integration was forced, by both law and literal force, on people who fought against it.

        Do yo uwant to know how many churches were forced to integrate or perform mixed race marriages?
        ZERO.
        That’s right… ZERO.

        The government could not force churches to integrate.
        many did, over time, on their own as social attitudes changed… but none were ever forced.

        There are still some churches that are segregated and will not perform interracial ceremonies.

        So go ahead… tell me how you are so sure that the government will throw away the Constitution and force churches to perform a ceremony they don’t want to.

      • Brendan, I just want to inform you that you took our supermajority state government and forced them to change our religious shield law. Remember I told you yesterday there were consequences you were not thinking of, yet you would not answer my question. Well, here’s the consequence. The law was supposedly “defanged” by LGBT activisits in a meeting yesterday with state legislators. They, as all on the left do, tried to pigeonhole as many people out of the human category and into the specialty balkanized human category to the point they included ancestral origin. As a result of this law, a confederate descendant can now walk into a black bakery in Indiana and request a confederate flag cake. Not only is he protected from being discriminated against on the basis of ancestral origin, so he can sue, but now your side added the extra penalty of criminal charges and jail time. Well done, wouldn’t you say?

      • I respectfully cannot speak with you any longer because in this state, we have no first amendment coverage. Thank you for that. But I do not wish to be sued or imprisoned for a perceived offense. Have a nice life. When you need me next time, I won’t be there. No more Katrina assistance, or WTC assistance, or Joplin assistance or Sandy assistance. California can suck sand. They aren’t getting any of our water if I can help it. No more going to any social cause rallies, or anonymous donations to Ferguson businesses. Not a single one of you stood up for us. You chose to believe a lie and now we have lost something sacred, not in a religious sense, but a legal sense, because of your tyrannical selfishness. Bake your own cake from now on bub. I am shutting down. As are many, many more of my friends with faith. Find some other sucker to kick.

      • Perfect analogy.
        Some Christians believe that not being allowed to discriminate is an attack on their freedom… that is the same argument the Klan made.
        That having to allow integration was an attack against their freedom

  33. your premise is wrong. Therefore your argument is invalid. Your whole argument seems to stem from the premise that being gay is a choice. It is not. When did you choose to be heterosexual? Why not make the choice to be gay for an afternoon? You probably cannot. Gay is not a choice, and therefore is a part of the fabric of society. We have just as much need and right to have a cake baked as a hetero couple. On that note..don’t believe that a business should be FORCED to do anything they don’t want to. But they are also free to face the consequence, be it on Yelp or the social media. However, to legislate that a store can be a bigot if it wants to is also not right. The rights of the business should be held within the owner of the businesss. If he wants to drive his/her own store into bankruptcy, that’s up to him/ her

    • Homosexuality is a choice, sir. The Bible tells us that God commanded against it. When does God ever command us not to do something we can’t help? God created men with a natural desire for women. It is part of His creation plan. Men choose to give in to the temptation to become homosexuals. I will agree with you that perhaps the temptation to do it was not their choice. Satan and our corrupted flesh can without warning or our choice tempt us to do a lot of things. But when they give in to it and choose to obey it, and embrace it, it is a choice. And it is a choice that God commands against. When did I choose to become straight? I didn’t. I was created that way. As were you and every other person. Homosexuals have chosen to give in to a temptation and change the natural God-given order of things.
      But I absolutely, sincerely, love homosexuals. I really, honestly do. My God and Jesus loved them, and teaches me to do the same. He died for them, and I am willing to do the same. Yes, they are sinners. So am I. We all are. No one is better than anyone else. I, as a straight person, am not better than a homosexual. We all need God’s grace because of sin, whether the sin be homosexuality, lying, cheating, adultery, pornography, not honoring God, disobeying parents, etc. But God was gracious enough to send His Son to take the death you and I deserved because of that sin. I have accepted that as my salvation, and I pray that you and any homosexual come to trust in Him also. Thank you!

      • If its s choice means you have the exact same choice and I know you are not attracted to the same sex

      • You’re right, it’s a choice for me too. And I chose to honor the Bible and God and not to pursue same-sex relationships.

      • What I’m saying is that some of those you would call straight can be tempted with homosexuality. The question is, do you give into that temptation and pursue that lifestyle? That’s where the choice comes in. Others are not even tempted by it. Praise God for that. Some are. Being tempted to do something doesn’t make you a sinner. But you must refuse to give in and embrace it. And homosexuals have embraced it and are seeking same-sex relationships. Thus making a choice. A sinful choice, says God.

      • So are you attracted to MEN??? If so you may be gay…if not then you are not…You can’t CHOOSE who you are attracted to!!!

    • I agree that it isn’t a choice, people are born gay or straight. Homosexuals are God’s creations just as Heterosexuals are. The problem I have is with one group forcing another, through intimidation, to fall into line. Do you think this approach will change hearts and minds? Threatening violence or the loss of your livelihood is only going to further divide this Country.

      • And that is the only thing keeping me from accepting the LGBT lifestyle. I cannot accept that God created homosexuals the way they are. If I could, that would change thing entirely. The way I see it is that maybe it isn’t a choice, and maybe it is. All the homosexuals that I have spoken to all refer to a point in their life when they “became gay”, their exact words.

        As I see homosexuality, it is a perversion of sexuality born out of sin. If someone is gay, do I hold it against them? No more than I would hold someone being born HIV-positive against them. They didn’t ask to be born that way, it’s just a disease passed down to them through one or other of their parents. It’s the same way with sin. I don’t hold it against them, but I’m not going to go down and expose myself to the same disease.

      • And I’ve had the exact opposit experience. My daughter has been friends with a boy, now a man, since 1st he was gay even as a child. He didn’t b. He enjoyed playing house, crocheting, doing hair, wasn’t hard to figure out.

    • Michael, one doesn’t choose one’s having homosexual nor heterosexual desires. We do choose what we DO. Choosing to marry a member of the same gender is a choice. Choosing not to celebrate such a choice should be as protected a freedom as the right of free speech, or to vote, or any other right.

      • So NOW, you’re arguing about actions? You just threw a HUGE rant at me above about it being about BELIEFS, and I told you that it isn’t your BELIEFS that are being curtailed, its your ACTIONS, and now you want to try to turn it into the actions of others?!?! HYPOCRITE ALERT!!! HYPOCRITE ALERT!!!

        YOU are free to have your beliefs. Your beliefs (while wrong, backward, and intolerant in my opinion,) are NOT being curtailed, infringed upon, nor being made to suffer in ANY WAY…

        Once those beliefs force you to ACT in an intolerant manner, i.e. treating others with the same respect and courtesy and equality that YOU WOULD WANT FOR YOURSELF, you have become a bigot! And you should not be allowed to ACT that way…

        The problem with you extremist types is you want it both ways, whichever suits your ability to be the intolerant people that your PERSONAL beliefs demand that you be… (You religious beliefs, I GUARANTEE, demand that you treat others with compassion, tolerance and in a manner in which YOU would want to be treated… Too bad your PERSONAL beliefs cause you to pick out the worst that your religious beliefs have to offer instead of the best…)

  34. I say it’s OK if these people are offended by an “activity” and want to exercise their religious freedom. But conversely, I have the same right to be offended by their bigotry and not give $$ to that establishment. I would like them to place a sign saying “This establisment exercises Religious Freedom” so I know to give my money to their more inclusive business rival. FYI, I am a pro-choice supporter of gay marriage who is a registered Republican. Some of you will say that’s an oxymoron but there are alot of people who lean this way.

    • You’re saying you are unable to determine what a person’s beliefs are so you want them to announce them so you are able to pass your own judgment on that business. As if we don’t already have enough screaming about their sexual and religious preferences. I’m not playing that game and personally would not care if you went on to the next business that you felt was more to your liking. In fact, I prefer that would. Maybe we should all sew a symbol on our clothing so we could be more easily identified. I sure hope your discernment is much better in other, more important aspects of your life.

      FYI, it’s mostly those that lean in your direction that paint with such a broad brush. I don’t care what party you are registered with or who you support. I don’t know anyone that thinks all Democrats are this way and all Republicans are the opposite.

      • I guess I’m saying if they want to run their business that way, that’s fine. I dont want to do business with someone who does. They don’t really need to wear a lable…the internet will get the word out. When I go visit my sister in Indiana, we’ll only go to business she & her husband have found who are not be discriminating.

      • Most of the people I know don’t discriminate against gays but do not want to compromise their faith when it comes to a marriage ceremony or anything else that could be taken as acceptance of the practice. Homosexuality is viewed as a sin but no larger one than any of the rest of us have. In that light we wouldn’t break a thief out of jail or procure a weapon for a known murderer or encourage a habitual liar. We don’t hate those people but if we have to be accountable for our own sins then it isn’t unfair to expect it from others. If they don’t agree or choose not to that’s ok too- just don’t try to force us to accept it. Won’t happen. We actually choose to interact with them in most cases simply to have a chance to show other options, not because we want the work. Not just gays but anyone that disagrees with us.

        By attempting to threaten our livelihood because we disagree on something that obviously violates our firm belief it’s actually you that is discriminating against us in our view.

      • That’s a reasonable and adult point of view. What is unreasonable is the death threats, forcing the pizza parlor owners to hide because they aren’t safe. Does that seem reasonable to anyone?

    • There you go again…bigotry!? It’s not bigotry if someone truly believes that to participate in a gay wedding violates their religious faith. You are forcing them to choose between political correctness and their religious values. I’m a Christian in that I believe in Jesus but I practice no religion. I would cater a gay wedding if I could cook but I cannot sanction the intimidation of those who think gay marriage is an affront to God. Christianity has flourished for 2000 years. Homosexuality has been around forever. They’ve coexisted peacefully until now. Do you want Christians to disappear? They don’t expect you to. They want to be treated with respect just as you do. This crap is tearing this country apart. Why on earth do you insist on having a caterer or baker work for you if they don’t want to? Go next door, take your business and money elsewhere.

      • Yes, it is not bigotry at all. Damn it if I don’t like what you do I sure as hell don’t want to bake a cake for you LOL!

      • OF COURSE forcing someone to abide by your beliefs (religious or not) when they don’t believe as you do is discrimination! Its the DEFINITION of bigotry… Let’s check it, shall we? The bible has been used to discriminate against blacks, women, interracial marriage, Jews, Muslims, gays, divorcees, and even other Christians, because they were all said to be “an affront to God.” Are those not bigotry either because God said it was okay? The test is where religious freedom violates the basic human rights of someone else, not where they diverge from the beliefs of someone else. Furthermore, it isn’t your religious freedom that’s being curtailed, its your actions. You are free to believe as you like, no matter who agrees or not. But, you are NOT free to discriminate because of those beliefs. In short, you are free to think whatever you want about whomever you want. That is your right. But, ACTING upon those beliefs is what makes you a bigot. And, I look around at the actions (not the beliefs) of supposed Christians and am ashamed of them…

    • How about “NO GAYS” or even better “NO FAGS” now that would be something LOL- take your money and sit on it oxymoronic person.

    • Janice your idea would be easy and no sign would be required if these cherry pickers actually practiced their “strong” beliefs. You know… like if said Bakery was closed on Sundays and all Holy days. Maybe If they had a standardized form for wedding cakes; one that asked if you were divorced, homosexual, engaged in premarital sex or ever committed adultery? Then anyone could know they would refuse service to a gay couple (and 98% of everyone else as well). I don’t see any other way to prove that a hater (I’m thinking someone like Zei here) could “prove” that her “right” to not serve is based on religious belief and not out of sheer discrimination or hate.
      ~signed
      “Another Oxymoronic Person”

  35. This is such bullsh*t. Mister West, are you simply too limited in your intelligence to understand history and too limited in your ability to understand that you have simply taken one line of text from Thomas Jefferson’s writing and applied to it to you want, instead of actually understanding what is really going on? No one is attempting to subvert your religious views. No one is demanding that you change your opinion on homosexuality. No one is attempting to get you to enter into a homosexual relationship, much less a marriage. Your views, are simply that… YOUR views. And you are entitled to them, and everyone else is required to respect your right to have them… But, NOT the views themselves! I’m tired of people like you and your victim mentality and your (completely inaccurate) assumption that I have to respect your opinion, or your beliefs. I do not have to do anything of the sort! All I am required to do is respect your right to HAVE your views… And, in reality, you are the one that is demanding that people accept YOUR VIEWS, not the other way around. Espousing the victim mentality (as you just have in this opinion piece, because that’s what it is, an opinion,) is simply you (and those like you) realizing that you cannot win the war that your religion started 2000 years ago on anyone that it disagreed with, and is now losing… And, it is losing because an enlightened society is stripping you of the weapons that it has used to propagate that war for so long. (Those weapons would be fear, hatred, and bigotry… Until you realize that it is your religious views that are keeping our society ignorant and close-minded, we will never socially advance. Of course, social advancement means acceptance, tolerance, and love. Of course, given your inability concerning these things as they apply to anyone you disagree with (the hallmark of your religious views,) all enlightened people can hope for is that time will cure society of the madness of your ignorance…

    • Yes, I’m afraid that when someone else is telling me what is and what isn’t against my religion, they are subverting my religion. My conscience before God tells me that it would dishonor him to photoshoot a same-sex wedding or cater to it. With all respect, sir, it is the homosexuals who have the victim mentality here. They are so quick to put words in my mouth saying that I hate them when I don’t. All I am trying to do is do what I feel my God would have me to do, with absolutely no hatred toward any homosexuals. I love them as a matter of fact, and so does my Jesus. This is not a matter of me hating homosexuals so much that I won’t make a cake for them. It’s a matter of me wanting to worship and honor my God. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to die for homosexuals. Jesus did. How is that hatred? What more do you want from us? Sir, the homosexuals are the ones victimizing themselves. You’re right, they’re not trying to make me be a homosexual, and I’m not trying to make them be a Christian. There are plenty of other places of service that would love to make the cake or shoot the wedding. But when the state makes me do something that I believe would dishonor my God, they are precisely undermining my religion. It has nothing, absolutely, completely, 100% NOTHING to do with who the homosexuals are as people. It has everything to do with me pleasing my God. But it appears that homosexuals are trying to take away my freedom to please God by making me do things I believe would not please Him.

      • Let me see if I got this right… you love them, would be willing to die for them but you won’t bake a cake for them? Did I get that right?

      • Yes, I would gladly bake a cake for them. If a homosexual came to me for a birthday cake or to buy groceries or clothes from me, as a business owner, I would be happy to help them as I would any one else. However, I do not feel that I would be honoring my God in baking a cake for a gay wedding, because in my conscience before God, I don’t believe it would be right. This has nothing to do with the homosexuals themselves and everything to do with what I feel would honor God. Please stop trying to make a law that protects my right to worship God into a law that attacks homosexuals. It doesn’t in any way attack them. They are free to go to whomever they wish for things like cake. And I would venture to say that there are an awful lot of places that would gladly supply it for them. However, there are a few business owners who in freely exercising their religion, as they have the right to do, cannot in full faith do something that their religion tells them would be a party to sin. No one, not even homosexuals, have the right to make someone do something that violates their religion, as per the Constitution, First Amendment. I am glad to help my fellow man in any way no matter what his personal choices, but my God does not want for me to be a party to someone else’s sin. I believe baking and catering a same-sex wedding cake would be doing that, so I would very humbly and kindly decline.
        This law has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals or anyone else. It simply is trying to protect religious people from having to do something they believe is wrong. And our Founding Fathers already granted them that right over two centuries ago. Please don’t make this bill what it isn’t. Thank you.

      • Actually, you’re incorrect here. Your right to religious freedom ends where the basic human rights of another begin. That’s the test we use. If you’re beliefs violate the life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness of someone else, its your freedom to act on those beliefs that gets curtailed, not their basic human rights… Nice try, though. But, its discrimination wrapped in religious freedom…

      • A homosexual’s right to pursuit of happiness does not include forcing others to accept their lifestyle choice and violate their own religion just so that homosexual can buy a damn cake you idiot. Like I said, certainly the homosexual is bright enough to find a place that will cater to them? Do they have to force ministers, photographers, bakers to deal with their stupid asses? Do homosexual’s have the special right to make others accept them? No they don’t and they never will. Period. This is a great big giant world – go somewhere else and stop bitching about it already.

      • Well, that didn’t take long… The obligatory ad hominem attack and then the “go away so I don’t have to actually deal with you” cliche… (Hmm… Sounds just like the Freedom FROM Religion I keep hearing all of you types screaming against…) First and foremost how are you violating your religion, again? Are you somehow becoming gay for allowing a gay person to get married? Or for helping them celebrate their special day? Are you afraid that your God will love you less if you assist in the happiness of others? Its really too bad that you don’t understand God’s love. You might be able to get rid of some of that rage and hatred that is REALLY obvious in your posts…

      • LOL – good looks like you got it 🙂

        Stupid comment with nothing but stupid ideas in it. Most people could not give two craps over what gay people do, myself included. But when they start demanding services of people who have religious principles against homosexuality, they can go to hell, which frankly is where they are already going anyway LOL. Which begs the question why they even bother seeking services from anyone religious in the first place. Are they just that stupid or what? GO and FIND a gay baker, photographer, and have a civil ceremony – news flash, no matter how much you love each other, God still don’t like your unnatural union. Period. So just go ahead and leave him out of it. How difficult is that to understand?

        Sounds like you are the one who has a few misconceptions about God and God’s love. Wake up, fyi, God does not condone butt sex LOL. If that was the case, there would be no issue.

        Sorry – what’s next? Demanding I bake a cake for you and your dog to celebrate your wedding?

      • Noted that you could not answer the questions I asked. All that hatred and fear is clearly an exercise in externalization. You can admit that you’re gay, you know… Its okay. At least as far as the rest of us are concerned…

      • There were no questions worthy of an answer from me. I have no hatred or fear. Just because I say what is reality with all frankness and honesty and you don’t like the way that reality sounds, does not mean I am hateful or fearful of anything, at all. I look at it as it is, that’s it. And no actually I can’t admit that I am gay because I’m not LOL you moron, but what’s obvious is that you are.

      • To choose the specific person from whom you wish to buy a wedding cake or a flower arrangement is not a basic human right. It is not even an extended human right. It is an indulgence. And when the government steps in to grant indulgences, that’s granting a special privilege. Now if you wish to compel a baker to make a cake against their will, there is provision for that in the 13th Amendment, which allows involuntary servitude only as a punishment for a duly convicted crime. So take them to trial and see if a jury grants you their services against their will.

    • It may look like we are losing from your view Eric however the truth is everything is falling right into place! The further this world gets away from Christ the closer we are getting to His return! I pray that you will be open to meet Jesus before its too late!

      • And I hope that the Flying Spaghetti Monster touches you with his noodly appendage and smears you with the alfredo of enlightenment, otherwise you will be drained and served al dente along with you and all your ilk that worship false gods. R’Amen. Or, maybe I could say that Allah would cast his countenance upon you and you will be saved? Or, maybe Zeus will swoop down in the form of an eagle and carry you off to Mount Olympus. How about Odin sending a valkyrie to carry you in a chariot to Valhala… Yeah, I don’t believe in those either… No difference between and I, except you seem to think I believe in one fewer god than you do… Assumptions… What’s the old saying? Its better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and prove it?

    • And would you please be kind enough to not assume that because I am a Christian, I hate homosexuals? Would you please not assume and make a blanket statement that all Christians hate and wage war against those who oppose them? Frankly, it’s not true, and I would appreciate if in your argument, you did not assume false things about me and label me as something I am not. Sir, to put it bluntly, you do not understand what Christianity is about. And I totally don’t expect any non-believer to understand it. But could you at least have the respect to not make assumptions, call names, and label us as something, when you do not understand it fully?

      • Sir I am looking at the article and I’m sorry but I see absolutely no bigotry and hate. But I am open to you pointing it out to me? It seems as though Mr. West and other Christians such as myself are just tired of everyone else telling us how we should practice our religion, when the Constitution granted us the right to practice it freely.

      • Just so you understand, the Constitution grants YOU the right to practice your religion freely, but not when it violates the life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness of anyone else… Rights are NOT absolute, regardless of what you’d like. They end where another’s human rights being. The test of where those rights end is in where they infringe upon the life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness of someone else, NOT in where they diverge from the beliefs of someone else. Which means, YOU are free to practice YOUR religion, but not free to make others abide by it.

      • I am not violating anyone’s rights not making them abide by mine. They are free to get a cake anywhere else, as long as my rights to practice my religion are not. This law is not in any way shape or form attacking homosexuals. Zilch. It is keeping folks like me from having to choose between honoring God and keeping the law. But the homosexual crowd has come out of the woodworks to make themselves victims and take something personally that was never intended against them. And sir, I am sorry, but I am a Christian and I do not have hatred for gays or lesbians. Not at all. I sincerely love them. This is not about hatred or bigotry. It’s about me not being made to do something God doesn’t want me to do. And the First Amendment grants me that right. This bill defends that right. I am sorry that many of my fellow believers have chosen to hate and fight and call names and be rude. That is not right of them. But you sir, have no right to lump all Christians into one category. I sincerely apologize. Your hurtful language toward Christians made me assume you were against them. I apologize for assuming that. Please also don’t assume that you know better than everyone else? I have tried to respectfully state the truth, while you threw around words like hate and bigotry. And fear. Sir, I do not fear the fact that my Christian rights would be taken away in the name of “equality”, such as is happening. Jesus told me in His Word it would happen. I am simply trying to uphold what is right and what is Constitutional, but I realize the world will oppose Christians because they opposed Christ. I am sorry that you do not see it that way.

      • OF COURSE you are violating someone else’s rights by forcing them to abide by your beliefs (religious or otherwise!) That’s the DEFINITION of bigotry! There’s a VERY big difference between the rights guaranteed to you in the Bill of Rights, (like freedom to practice your religion) and BASIC HUMAN rights like equality, life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, that are in the preamble to the Constitution as ASSUMED… Freedom of religious practice can NEVER be allowed to trump basic human rights, like life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness… Its the very reason our forefathers came here and founded this country in the first place – to escape persecution by those that did not believe as they did! Did you not understand my last post? I’m not insulting you, nor am I failing to acknowledge your beliefs as valid as anyone else’s. Nor am I opposing Christ by allowing gays to marry and love who they choose, for NOWHERE does Christ make any mention of it… Except Luke 34-35. But, I wouldn’t use that if I were you. It actually kind of makes homosexuality acceptable…

        Having said that, what is it exactly that you are being made to do that God told you not to do? Is recognizing someone else’s happiness and choice to love who they want somehow making you gay? Are you afraid that assisting someone be happy will make God love you less?

        What you are failing to realize is that your religious beliefs are a shield, to be used on yourself. Not a club to be used on someone else.

      • Could you correct your Biblical reference, please? I’m curious to find out where Christ talks about homosexuality. There just isn’t any Luke chapter 34. Maybe you were referring to Luke 17:34, in which case you are drastically taking it out of context.

        And why do you limit it to the words in red? Maybe Christ didn’t feel a need to say it if it had been said before. I mean if God the Father said it instead of Christ, wouldn’t that be good enough. And he did in Leviticus 18:22 and then goes on in verse 23 to parallel it with beastiality (having sex with animals, which is still frowned on in society).

        I have no problem with non-believers being gay or lesbian. In my opinion, they don’t know better. I do independent house cleaning work and I have clients that are gay. I have no problem cleaning their house or making their beds (even knowing that they are sleeping together, etc. in them). But to be forced to participate in any way in something that violates my religious beliefs, why should I compromise my constitutionally protected religious freedom for something that violates my conscience.

        Homosexuals, I wish them the best in life on a individual level, but I will not accept the LGBT lifestyle and I refuse to have anything to do with furthering it. I will not compromise my beliefs like that.

      • They don’t know better… Because they what? They don’t have time to kneel and talk to themselves.. Piss on you

      • First and foremost, the bible is perhaps the WORST thing that could be used as a moral guide or set of laws… There is nothing moral or ethical about its teachings. Its actually kind of sickening to see people believe it actually leads them to lead more moral lives, when quite the opposite is true. And there is 2000 years of rape, torture, murder, hatred, fear, sexism, racism, and prejudice of the highest orders to justify my words. History doesn’t lie, which is why Christian revisionists are struggling so hard to re-write it. Why do you think the framers of our Constitution struggled so hard to create a government that would be prevented from being influenced by it?

        Luke 17:34-35… Sorry about the typo. Its pretty clear what it says… If 2 gay people (men or women) are together, one will be raptured, the other will not. That about sum it up? And “context” is the battle cry of those that know something is wrong but won’t do anything about it because they don’t want their illusions shattered… How can you take: “Thou shalt not kill” out of context? Yet, the bible proscribes about 100 things that people must be killed for…

        Now we come to the true problem. When you can reach in and pull out a verse that satisfies your own prejudice, but don’t use the others, that is all the proof that’s needed that you are simply using it to satisfy your own bigotry,,, That’s what truly makes the bible a very poor guide for life choices, and those that follow it poor citizens of the world.

        All of this hatred and intolerance toward gays is based on about 11 verses in the bible…

        There’s 9 verses condemning women’s rights, and we had a whole time in our history where women were treated with intolerance (even though they were still loved by those claiming the bible as reason for that intolerance,) why are you not holding up those verses and honoring God that way? Or are you, by choosing to do so for YOURSELF,not for others?

        There’s probably 20 verses that discourage or condemn alcohol, and we had a whole time in our history where alcohol was treated with intolerance. Why are you not holding up those verses and honoring God that way? Or are you, by choosing to do for YOURSELF, not for others?

        There is a verse that condemns handicapped people, and people with disfiguring marks.

        There are verses that condemn tattoos and body piercings.

        There are verses that condemn atheists, muslims, jews, buddhists, pagans, and every other religion. Some even condemn religious tolerance of any kind.

        There are even verses that CONDONE slavery, cannibalism, and rape.

        And why is polygamy wrong again? ACTUAL “traditional” marriage would be for a man to be able to marry as many women as he likes…

        There are even a few verses in the bible condemning being a vegetarian.

        There are a few verses that proscribe how menstruating women should act. My guess is that you’ve never done any of those things, nor has any women that you know.

        Why are you not holding up those verses and honoring God that way?

        You know why? Because society has enlightened past those things. Only by putting aside such things as the bible and all its hate and fear has a society ever advanced in any aspect.

        Remember. Every major advance in science, morality, ethics, economics, and social development has been fought against by Christians claiming they were “abhorrent to God.”

      • First of all, let me apologize for my remark earlier, “please don’t act like you know everything.” Honestly, that was an unnecessary line. You are arguing your point, and you could say the same to me for arguing mine. I was going to change that line and forgot when I clicked post. That being said . . .

        I am not forcing anyone to abide by my beliefs. They are free to go anywhere else to get the cake. And most places, I am sure, would be glad to make it. You are absolutely, 100% correct, and I couldn’t agree more that my freedom to exercise my rights ends where another’s begins. A professing Muslim is free to worship as he feels is right in our country, but if a true radical Muslim wants to strap a bomb to himself and start killing people, that is where his freedom ends because he’s threatening other’s right to life. I get it. I understand it. What I desperately wish is that those of you who keep using that argument would kindly explain to me how I am in any way inhibiting the rights of others to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Could someone please explain that to me? Also, could you all please kindly instruct me on how exactly I am forcing my religion on someone? If I put a gun to someone’s head and say “Convert to Christianity or I pull the trigger,” that’s forcing my religion on them. If I politely decline to make a cake for them because I feel it would dishonor my God, and they go to the bakery across the street who gladly makes it for them, how am I forcing my beliefs on them? How have I inhibited their pursuit of happiness? They found another bakery to make their cake, I’m happy, they’re happy, the other bakery is happy. They exercised their liberty to get a cake, and I exercised my religion, and we are existing in harmony. Someone, please, please enlighten me on how they could then claim that their liberties were infringed upon?

        Also, were you aware that the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness phrase is not actually in the Constitution or the preamble? It is in the Declaration of Independence. And the entire sentence is (interestingly enough) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Hmmm . . . interesting. You make the argument that I am curtailing their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness by doing what I believe God would want me to do and declining to make the cake. Well, according to Thomas Jefferson, those life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness rights, these basic rights you keep claiming, came from God and He endowed men with them. So you’re saying that God gave them the right to force me to do something dishonoring to God? That, sir, is preposterous and illogical.

        It is also un-Biblical, and the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were almost entirely God-fearing, Bible-believing Christian men. They came here to found this country and instituted, among other things, religious freedom. I know, what bigots, right? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock, John Adams, James Madison, all of them bigots, right? Well, at least, I assume you think they were bigots, because I’m trying to do nothing more than what they were trying to do, and I am automatically a bigot for doing it. What about the Puritans, who came here to freely exercise their religion when others in their homeland were trying to inhibit it? What bigots, right? What about Daniel in the Bible who refused to follow the law to pray to the king, and instead prayed to His God as He knew God wanted Him to. He surely is a bigot. What about Jesus, who went about doing what God told Him to do always? He loved people enough to preach against their sin and eventually die for it. Is He therefore a bigot? What do these men all have in common? They were trying to freely exercise what they believed their God wanted them to do. That is all the Christian baker who politely declines making the cake is trying to do. If he’s therefore a bigot for doing it, it stands to reason that they are also. So Jesus, Daniel, the Puritans, the Founding Fathers, all Christians who have ever lived, are all bigots? Apparently, these days, being a Christian and living like one makes everyone call you a hateful bigot. Hmmm . . . I wonder if I could play the hate speech card like the lobbyists for homosexuality often do?

        My Bible tells me there will come a day when men will call evil good and good evil. And that is precisely what is going on here. Homosexuality is evil. True Christianity is good. Yet I see a lot of people bashing Christians for being bigots because they are simply trying to follow God, and I see homosexuality being more and more exalted above Christianity. Understand, as I already said, I love homosexuals as I love all other sinful man. So did Jesus. He died for them. And if they repent of that sin, He is very willing and wants to forgive them. The same is true for me when I sin, and you when you sin. I suppose that I am just going to have to accept that me trying to honor my God is going to be labeled bigotry. I am secure enough in my beliefs that I can accept that, because I know I’m not a bigot. But I suppose you have the Constitutional right to view me as one. But that right ends when you begin forcing me to infringe upon my basic rights by making me make this cake. It infringes upon my pursuit of happiness, because true happiness for the Christian comes from honoring God, and I would be unhappy and feel guilty of dishonoring Him if I made this cake. Maybe you or other Christians wouldn’t, but in my religious beliefs, I would. You see how this works both ways, sir? Except in your case, the homosexual can go anywhere else for the cake and be happy. In my case, you want me, wherever I go, to not be able to do what I think would honor God. Whose rights are really being infringed upon here? The homosexuals, who probably 9 times out of 10 won’t even be declined because most bakeries would make it for them, thus satisfying their right to pursuit of happiness? Or the Christian, whom you wish to be allowed to practice his religion, pursue his happiness in this matter 0 times out of 10? It seems to me that instead of “discrimination wrapped in religion”, maybe it’s a case of taking away religious freedom wrapped in equality. Because that is precisely what this is. Homosexuals, and all other minority groups have been trying to trample on my Constitutional rights to exercise Christianity over and over, all in the name of “equality” when really they want their rights to trump mine, not to be equal to mine. I am simply trying to speak out while I still have the freedom and not just let others take away my rights. Christians are getting tired of their rights being trampled more and more every day in a country where they are supposedly free to exercise them. So we’re speaking out, to try to defend what is rightfully ours. We have the freedom of speech and the press to do so. Another Constitutional right. We’re not forcing our religion down anyone’s throat. Others like yourself are trying to force their definition of Christianity down our throat. So we’re speaking out while we can.

        But maybe its pointless. Maybe there’s no use in trying to fight for what is rightfully mine. I sure am glad the patriots in the time of the American Revolution didn’t think so. I leave you all with that. Thanks!

      • Here’s how… An average, common man on the street walks into a store and expects to be served whatever it is that he walked into the store for. In today’s day and age, ONLY heterosexuals can expect that. Just like blacks a few decades ago, homosexuals have to pick and choose their stores, because of the prejudice that they receive…

        ALL that they are asking is that you treat them the same as you would wish to be treated. THAT IS ALL. And, you are completely incapable of doing that…

        What you are doing is saying, “I’m treating THAT person differently because my RELIGIOUS BELIEFS tell me I don’t agree with them.”

        If you can live with that, then you better hope god is as forgiving as you hope…

      • You can’t be a christian with hate and bigotry in your heart!! Doesn’t work that way. Allen West is a CHRISTIAN in name only!

      • First, no where did I assume that you hate homosexuals at all. Please do not put words into my mouth. I merely pointed out the fact that fear, hatred, and intolerance is the norm when it comes to how Christianity views gay rights. If you don’t believe that, then you obviously don’t read too many world events, nor have you studied much history, or the bible itself… As evidence, you can simply read “Sharon’s” post above that she made in reply to my post. She deliberately attempts to incite fear and hatred toward homosexuality by equating it to child sexual abuse, and refers to homosexuality as a moral “evil.” Like, its somehow something to be afraid of? Second, please do not assume that I do not understand Christianity or that I am not a Christian. Catholic school, 8 years of religious education, 6 years of bible study, 2 years as an altar boy, 2 years of theology studies, and a year studying for the seminary, places me in the “probably understand it better than you” category. Third, GOD does not need your protection. Against gays, blasphemers, adulterers, heretics, or anyone else. He can take care of himself. And if your RELIGION or your BELIEFS need protection, then perhaps its what needs to change…
        This is not a campaign to change your religion or your beliefs. This is a campaign for decency, equality, and humanity for everyone. Not just those you agree with.
        Treat others as you would want to be treated, right? Would you enjoy being made to leave a place of business in shame because the owner wouldn’t serve you because you chose to be Christian? Or because you chose to outwardly display your beliefs? Or because you drove a gas-guzzler?
        Supporting other’s choices does not imply that you share their beliefs. It never has. And, trying to say it does is simply a way to discriminate and justify it…

      • I can give you a view from somebody who was once christian but realized that what I believed in and what many others are currently believing is merely a book… And that book is the ONLY proof of any kind when it comes down to the existence of a god. A god that sits in the sky and gets fulfillment in spreading bigotry as a form of fear mongering. Have you ever asked yourself why if a man LOVES a man or a woman LOVES a woman enough to be in a relationship that they have a gauranteed spot in hell? But not the “Christian” who promotes anger towards gays and other religions?

    • Interesting the kind of language often employed by “Liberals” (a misnomer).

      “Fear, hatred, bigotry”? Eric, look again at what YOU wrote. There’s plenty of fear, hatred and bigotry in it.

      Eric, for about 200+ years, this country didn’t require anyone to participate in a practice that caused them to feel that they were doing moral evil. We don’t require those who refuse to kill people to be in the military. Yet, they benefit by the freedoms that have been protected by those who DO put their own lives at risk, and shoot to kill, enemies of America.

      You are not required to SHARE anyone’s opinions. But telling us we can’t LIVE BY our own beliefs, instead of participating in your “enlightened” beliefs, doesn’t look very “enlightened” to me. It looks exactly like arrogance and tyranny.

      • Sure… having to treat people equally is tyranny, right?
        That’;s the same argument opponents made against integration… the government forcing you to treat people equally.

      • Brandon, first, thank YOU for your putting your own life at risk for our country!

        But why did you do it? So that people can be told to commit what some would honestly believe was a major evil? It’s one thing to hand someone a hamburger over the counter. No one is going to ask “are you a homosexual?” before passing the food. But it’s not the same when you tell a baker that he has to PARTICIPATE in CELEBRATING homosexuality. Some people believe that they will go to hell for this.

        As to the point you made about equating homosexuality with race, did you read Mr. West’s answer to this? When he goes into a business, it’s obvious that he’s Black – and he didn’t choose it. It’s not a “choice.” It’s not a desire, not a behavior. It has nothing to do with his character. But, I will agree that there are still people who believe that Black people are somehow inferior to Whites. (I was surprised to run into one at a beauty shop a while back.)

        And, to the shame of the Christian church as a whole, there have been, and still are, Christians who don’t know enough of Scripture to realize that WE ALL CAME FROM ADAM! None of us is “less highly-evolved!” (BTW, did you ever hear how Darwin’s teaching ramped up racism far beyond what it had been? In the early part of the 20th century, and I believe into the 1940’s, it was actually taught that your skin color had to do with things like intelligence and character!

        Some Christians taught that dark skin was the mark that God put on the murderer Cain, and they think Adam and Eve were white! The Bible never says what was that mark. Likely, Adam and Eve were darker than you and lighter than Mr. West. Their genetics, as remixed in their offspring, made all the levels of coloration in the world today. (But, I digress.)

        Point is, people of a faith other than yours deserve to be treated equally before the Law, not told that we can practice “freedom of worship” as long as we don’t actually practice “freedom of conscience.”

      • I was going to stay out of this but… since when is being paid to bake a
        cake “participating in the event”? Does the place you buy the rings,
        rent the tux, buy the gown or order the flowers “participate” in your
        wedding. What is so different in the process of baking a cake for a
        wedding of a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple? Do these bakers
        screen a hetero couple to see if either of them had been divorced from a
        previous marriage, do they ask to see annulment papers? That by
        definition of their belief would preclude them from baking them a cake as well.
        Do they ask if Bobby is actually a Barbara or if Sam, Francis or Kim
        are male or female when they take an order? I just can’t get over why
        someone else beliefs (or lack of) or opinion should matter in a business
        transaction. I believe all this will just open too many doors we may
        not want to open. To me it seems like taking a step back 50 years
        instead of a step forward. Whatever happened to the saying “Business is
        business and it’s strictly financial.”?

      • But you aren’t treating the person who is providing the service equally. You are placing demands on them to participate. It isn’t only about gay rights. It is about individual rights. Where do you draw the line at the black baker who is required to make a custom cake for a KKK rally? At a Muslim wedding caterer who must now service a non-Muslim function when the client demands Pork as a menu item? At a Jewish silk screening business, where some people want to have tee-shirts made with a Swastika on it? At what point is the laborer allowed to say, I am sorry but I don’t want to provide this service? I do not share the same view of the world and I am not the right service provider for you?

      • Thank you for eloquently demonstrating and proving my point! Your deliberate reference to homosexuality as a moral “evil” and attempting to equate it to child sexual abuse is EXACTLY the type of fear and hatemongering that I am talking about. (And you DID try to equate it… The words “an example as extreme as forcing someone to participate in a ceremony celebrating homosexuality: child sexual abuse.” This is sheer ignorance, if not blatant delusion on your part.) They are NOTHING alike, nor are they even remotely anywhere on the same wavelength… One is an action between consenting adults that find each other sexually desireable and one is a nonconsentual act of force by a person in position of authority over another. What you have just done is what is morally reprehensible and unethical, and intellectually dishonest. And, what you are doing is EXACTLY what you have just accused me of – telling someone else that they can’t LIVE BY their own beliefs, just because they differ from yours… And THEREIN is the intolerance and bigotry that shows through clearly… And, here is the evidence:
        I HAVE participated in things that I don’t believe in, AND SO WOULD YOU! Because they were the right things to do in order to show my friendship, love, compassion, empathy, and respect for the PEOPLE that asked me to participate, not their BELIEFS! Would you not go to a friend’s wedding if they were gay? Would you boycott a friend’s wedding because they decided to have a Pagan Handfasting? Or would you not go to a friend’s Buddhist funeral because you don’t believe in Buddhism? Or what about a friend who happens to celebrate Santeria? Would you not share in a ritual supper with them if they invited you? Or do you just naturally choose not to have friends that don’t share your beliefs? I think your post speaks for itself…
        And, by the way, not only am I not required to SHARE anyone else’s beliefs, I’m not even required to RESPECT those beliefs, which is what you want me to do. All I am required to do respect your right to have them. That’s all. The minute they cross over into actions of intolerance toward others that don’t share them THAT is bigotry…

      • And, stop making the assumption that I’m a liberal. You make more of a fool of yourself the more assumptions you make. I’m not. I’m very conservative. At least as far as government is concerned. Socially, I will freely admit to being quite liberal. Personal conduct shouldn’t be legislated. Period. The only legislation should be to keep people from discriminating against others because of who/what they are, or choose to be…

  36. Logical fallacies and non sequiturs abound in this “guardian of the right wing” babble. The most absurd of all being West’s invocation of Jeffersonian history and his revisionist and infantile summation of the letter to the Danbury Baptists to defend his intolerance.

    In business, Mr West, the consumer enjoys something called the “right of public accommodation”. This right is not absolute and there are grounds upon which business CAN be refused, but to refuse two men service because they like to privately suck on each other’s genitalia, has been consistently viewed by courts as arbitrary, unfair and bigoted. No one has removed the business owner’s right to hold a religious opinion based on a particular Bible interpretation. What is being upheld is fairness, equity, good business practice and acceptance of our system of a free and liberal democracy.

    If you loved Christianity as much as you claim, you would jealously protect it from being prostituted by Washington politics. You would endeavor to keep it unsullied by partisan exploitation and you would work harder to earnestly guard its precepts as belonging to a Kingdom not of this world.

      • Yeah that radical Christian baker down the street is just causing sooooo much trouble LOL

        Listen up limp dick liberal when the fags stop demanding special treatment guess everyone else will – now go order your cake from the gay baker and make sure he writes on top of it in nice big pink lettering “I’m A Liberal Idiot and Proud!!!”

      • Gays are demanding equal treatment.
        Radical Christians are demanding special treatment and the right to put their religious bigotry above the law

      • What law? There is no law that says they have to serve everyone that comes into their business. The difference between religious bigotry and religious freedom in this case is that serving at a function like this goes against their conscience. They could no more do it than you could shoot the cashier at the local supermarket. If it goes against their religious beliefs and therefore their conscience, they cannot be forced to do it. And that IS the law.

      • Equal treatment, rights, decency, and being free from prejudice is special treatment? Just like “those people” back in the 50’s, or “those people” in the 30’s, or “those people” when they were being fed to the lions, right? I guess they didn’t deserve that “special treatment” either, right?
        Ignorance at its best.

      • “Special treatment” not my words, that came from limp dick Brendan lol
        Like I said they need to find faggot friendly businesses and go there and spend their money on their wedding cakes and photography. THEY need to stop forcing their homosexuality on other people that don’t want anything to do with it. What don’t you understand about that?

        Screw off Eric. I don’t have anything personal against gays. I just see it for what it is. They demand what they want, they get it, and now they demand that anyone and everyone be “OK” with them. Life just does not work that way you ignorance whore.

      • Anyone who continually spews hatred such as this^^^ should not be surprised when they someday really do find themselves discriminated against. See how it feels when the hatred it’s aimed at YOU.

      • Thanks for the reprimand LMAO – if you call telling the truth spewing hatred then so be it. I’ve had hatred aimed at me my whole life, I ignore it.
        Sort of like right now with you.

      • Its kind of funny watching you rant. History remembers people like you as the antithesis of liberty and justice, remember that… Life actually does work that way. Its people like you that make the process slower and much more painful than it actually needs to be, but it’ll happen. It happened with jews over the objections of you extremist loons that said it was abhorrent to god, i happened with women over the objections of you extremist loons that said it was abhorrent to god, it happened with alcohol over the objections of you extremist loons that said it was abhorrent to god, it happened with blacks and other races over the objections of you extremist loons that said it was abhorrent to god, it happened with interracial marriage over the objections of you extremist loons that said it was abhorrent to god, and it will happen with homosexuals over the objections of you extremist loons that say it is abhorrent to god… Every step along the path of freedom, equality, liberty, and learning has seen extremist religious loons like you standing in the way. From those that persecuted Copernicus for his discoveries, to those that attempt to counter the discoveries of Darwin, to those that opposed Susan B. Anthony’s suffrage movement, to those that condemned Martin Luther King, to those that oppose equal rights and treatments for homosexuals, there is no difference… You ALL have stood in the way of the advancement of intelligence or social development of humanity as a species… And history HAS (and continues) to prove them right, and you just the petty jerk that wet his pants and threw a tantrum because it wasn’t in keeping with his “beliefs.” This issue is no different. You’re already losing. You’ve lost the battle for same-sex marriage, and you’ll lose the battle for the hearts and minds, too. With low-forehead types like you it will take a lot longer, because no doubt, you’ll teach your children hate and bigotry, too, but it will still happen… Brainwashing loses its power in the face of education and tolerance, which is what you loons have always been afraid of. History will judge, but until then, I have no inclination or duty to allow you to be the low-life, bigoted, hateful, mean-spirited, soulless, latent homosexual, scumbag that history will remember you as…

      • My rant? LMAO – wow you really told me a thing or two, feel better now? LOL

        You can’t force someone to like you or to approve of you or to accept you no matter how badly you wish it to be, life really is just like that. Life is how it is in reality, not how you wish it would be.

        You make a lot of idiotic assumptions apparently so you can get off to hearing yourself speak but all it really does is provide evidence to your stupidity and attitude that you are above everyone else.

      • Actually, like everyone else here, I just keep typing and making points to see what you’ll say… I already know it won’t be anything intelligent or useful. You actually have to have some intelligence for that. Its just that its always fun to poke the trolls and watch them foam at the mouth. Its kind of why people slow down at car crashes…

      • Like everyone else here? Dream on faggot.

        Nothing you have said or will ever say could ever ever make me foam at the mouth – I literally could not care less if I tried about what you say or do. You are nothing and you are nobody. You are just a stupid little bitch boy mouthing off. I happen to see your verbal offal because I work in front of 16 screens and monitor 3 dozen sites and your little comments pop up and guess what – we are laughing at YOU punk.

        Again as I said a day before, screw off.

  37. Too many people consider themselves “CHRISTIANS” but have too much hate in their hearts….GOD is about LOVE!! You are christians in NAME ONLY!!!!

    • Tell it like it is! I’m trying to get people to realize that, but they simply won’t accept it. They want so deparately to cling to their prejudices and fears. All under the guise of their “freedom.”

    • I have no hate in my heart. I agree with you that many of my Christian brethren do express rude hateful comments. And I, too, am saddened and even angered at their hateful and rude remarks. I love all homosexuals. Jesus did. You are, however, 100% correct. Too many consider themselves Christians but spew hatred and don’t care about the sinful world. I have not done all I can for others either. I stand condemned with many of my fellow believers for either being too comfortable, too lazy, and too fleshly to show care and love for those around me. I sincerely apologize for the Christians in your life who have not acted Christlike. May God help me and my fellow Christians to love everyone, while still standing for what’s right.

  38. When he asked whether she would provide flowers for an adulterer or someone who had “dishonored” their parents, she replied affirmatively.
    “Well, why would you serve them but not serve someone who is gay?” Tuchman asked.
    “It’s just a different kind of sin to me,” Jeffcoat replied. “I just don’t believe in it.”

  39. Too funny….progressive Libs are starting to see their decades of work going down the tubes. Tables are being turned on them and they just can’t seem to wrap their little heads around it. They thought having “rights” only applied to THEM…talk about narrow-mindedness! Oh my, the hypocrisy!

    • Then they need to open a private business not a public one. And if your private business is for people that have not committed any sin then you can’t even join. Seems one of your sins start with “love thy neighbor” which you seem to have a real problem with.

      • My friend, “Love thy Neighbor” is all fine and good, you can live civil with someone, but you shouldn’t have to support their lifestyle just because someone says you have to. What you’re doing is forcing people to associate with people they don’t want to.

  40. What presiding law governing religious freedom dictates, is that the government shall not place a “substantial burden” on the adherents of a particular faith, in accordance with their free exercise. How being forced to serve customers who practice a particular private sexual practice would constitute a “substantial burden” has never been made clear— unless of course, you consider Christian business owners mumbling “I just don’t believe in it”, to be a clear defense.

    HOWEVER, Mr. West, the existing laws make exceptions for the government to overstep this “substantial burden” defense, in cases where there is a “compelling government interest” to intervene (I.E. “CORE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES”). The other stipulation to this, is that government intervention in these matters must be carried out in the LEAST restrictive way possible.

    No surprise. Evangelical Christians– including their political representatives- have a complete inability to reason their way thru this issue; either theologically or philosophically. In putting a toe into the debate, they are quickly faced with the arbitrary and bigoted conundrum of the their position. The Bible condemns many other behaviors and practices, with much more vehement heat than homosexuality.

    In interview after interview, about whether business owners would serve homosexual couples, they are heard childishly repeating “Won’t do it– I just don’t believe in it– the government can’t make me.” When asked whether they would likewise refuse service to rank and file adulterers, fornicators, liars or drunkards, they universally reply “No, but that’s different”.

    The old adage “you can’t argue with stupid” applies here in a magnificent way.

    This is a perfect example of why accommodating fundamentalists is always a lose/lose proposition. They lack the critical thinking skills to reason through the issues and in the end, there’s always the “I don’t know why, but God said so” card in their back pocket to trump all considerations, be they legal, constitutional or religious.

    • Paul…you just don’t get it. Faith isn’t a possession of all persons. But those of us who have Faith in God the Almighty and Love God Standards which are recorded for us in the Bible, believe we must be obedient to those Standards. We must obey God rather than worry about pleasing man. We must allow our Bible Trained Conscience to guide us in all matters of life. Since the Bible is God’s word or letter to humans, we can trust the practical wisdom it provides. In this letter to mankind, God condemns homosexuality and calls it proverted. So as Christians we listen to our Creator. An example of his wisdom is quoted here from the book of Ephesian. Eph. 5 :3 Let sexual immorality and every sort of uncleanness or greediness not even be mentioned among you, just as is proper for holy people; 4 neither shameful conduct nor foolish talking nor obscene jesting — things that are not befitting—but rather the giving of thanks. 5 For you know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no sexually immoral person*+ or unclean person or greedy person,+which means being an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of the Christ and of God.
      6 Let no man deceive you with empty words, for because of such things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore, do not be sharers with them; 8 for you were once darkness, but you are now light in connection with the Lord. Go on walking as children of light, 9 for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth.10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are.

      • Louanna, as is commonly the case with evangelicals in these situations, you bypass the legal and constitutional arguments I put forward in this particular cultural dialogue, and go straight into a theological debate.

        People of faith who run their own business understand that in serving the public, you often provide services for people you disagree with or even people of dubious moral or ethical dispositions. It’s being a good business person. It’s also called being grown up. If you own a mattress company you likely sell beds to unmarried people who will get that thing home and paint it in body fluids. If you own a car lot you will likely sell a vehicle to someone who will one day drive drunk and possibly injure someone. And on and on we could go.

        Serving homosexual clientele at a restaurant, or a flower shop or selling them a mattress or used car is not endorsing their lifestyle or compromising your belief system. Neither is the government requiring you to do so a “substantial burden” to your religious freedom.

        Think. Please.

      • Business have the right to refuse service to anyone. I have owned many businesses and I understand what it means to serve others. I have worked in the homes of homosexuals via the decorators that use my services. I have a painting business. I never mistreat any person no matter how they believe and I don’t go into their homes and preach my religious belief either. On a few occasions I have been asked how I feel about their lifestyle knowing I am a Christian and I always answer the same way….”My opinion doesn’t matter. God’s opinion is what matters. I am a sinner myself and all I can do is try each day to serve God in spirit and truth.” I don’t condemn them I just don’t agree with them. It’s that simple. However, I have never been asked to attend a marriage celebration for a same sex couple. I never would attend even if asked. My conscience doesn’t bother me to paint their living room. I just don’t want to be around if they are being affectionate to each other. Most the time they are at work and I am left alone to do my job. I have never had any problems.
        The Constitution is a great piece of work but not as good as the Bible. Jesus wouldn’t attend the celebration of a homosexual and neither would I.

      • Businesses do NOT have the right to refuse services to anyone. There are state and federal discrimmination laws that protect consumers and limit a businesses ability to refuse service. End of story.

        We don’t live in a theocratic state. We live and conduct our lives in a constitutional democracy. Our form of liberal democracy was created by people escaping the power of religion in government. As citizens, Our reference for law, personal rights and freedoms come from the Constitution not the Bible.

        I have no clue whose wedding Jesus would attend, and neither do you. But Im confident of this: NONE of the Founding Fathers of this nation would be accepted for membership in your Church.

      • A voice of reason. Words of wisdom. As you say in the last sentence, it requires one to -Think. Unfortunately there is the downfall. These people are blinded by self righteousness to see common sense.

  41. It becomes particularly insulting for gays to try to lay claim to the civil rights struggle of blacks, when you consider that, based on current statistics, a percentage of white slave owners in the South had to have been gay, too. Certainly not all, but wouldn’t it have been comparable to their percentage in the population at large?

  42. Here’s a question… If a baker (or other business owner) refuses to bake a cake (whatever) for a gay couple based on his/her religious belief; would/should he need to show “proof” of his religious affiliation?
    I can’t help but wonder how many homophobes or haters would too easily be able to hide their bigotry behind a mere statement that in effect can’t be proven. If there is no way to prove a belief (and I personally don’t believe there is) than how can a law be written or enforced in light of this?

    • Gods laws are written on our hearts. So even if a person (business owner) doesn’t have a church home, they may still have a sincere desire to serve God acceptably without hypocrisy. Since God’s Word condemns homosexually the person who is practicing Christianity may feel uncomfortable giving his or her service to a homosexual wedding since they understand the Bible clearly condemns the practice of homosexuality. Christians (practicing Christians) understand that God loves the person but he hates the act of (homosexuality). Yes the Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality. Eph. 5:3 “Let sexual immorality and every sort of uncleanness or greediness not even be mentioned among you, just as is proper for holy people; 4 neither shameful conduct nor foolish talking nor obscene jesting—things that are not befitting—but rather the giving of thanks.5 For you know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no sexually immoral person or unclean person or greedy person, which means being an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of the Christ and of God.

      • So do so many so called christians single out homosexuality like its a greater sin than any other sin. If you will not serve a gay wedding that means you refuse to serve adulterers or fornicators.
        Most people that are trying to use a bogus RELIGIOUS FREEDOM are hypocrites!!!

      • Ruckus Hello and thanks for your thoughts. However Religious Freedom isn’t the issue. It’s FREE WILL. Whether our Government gives us the freedom of Religion or not we can all have free will. We are all free to worship God without the approval of Government. We have the freedom of prayer. God gives us free will to show we love him and want to obey him. We are not robots. We can chose to obey or to chose another course. It’s our decision. And so my point is that humans can pray for Gods guidance at anytime. Governments can’t take that privilege away from us. We are made in Gods image and Prayer separates man from the animals.

      • I really wanted to go to Church yesterday morning but just could not take the time off. As I got on I-95 my car broke down in the middle lane. I realized that it was God telling me I should not have forsaken him. So I sat there and prayed as car after car blew their horn at me and my little car almost got rammed a dozen or so times. I sat there and prayed and apologized to God right up until the cops and the tow truck showed up. It cost me $300 for the tow, not to even mention the wrath of all those people in the 5 mile parking lot I had created. Surely some of them must have been Christian and were not upset at all about the 45 minute delay I had caused. Surely they prayed for me and my troubles and not once said “Oh my God, for Christ’s sake wtf is going on, I have to get to work!”. When I told the cop that I was sure God was punishing me for exercising my FREE WILL not making it to Mass he laughed and told me to remember that when they passed the basket to me on Sunday. Quite obviously he was not a Christian.

      • I don’t see any mention of homosexuality in that passage at all. But seeing as you do let’s ask this… what is the difference between being hired to do your job by baking a homosexual couple a cake and breaking one of the 10 Commandments weekly by having your bakery open on Sundays and making you and other Christian folk work on the Sabbath and encouraging other Christian folk to shop on the Sabbath or any other Holy Day? Isn’t that just a tad hypocritical? Btw… I wasn’t asking about Gods laws I asked how we could know by this proposed law how a person really WAS of faith and not just a hater hiding behind the law. If chosing to not serve a gay couple due to beliefs then quite honestly they should be asking if other couples are divorced, or have engaged in premarital sex. My whole point is you can’t cherry pick what is sin and what isn’t if in fact you say you are living by Gods law.

      • First off let me help you understand something you may have missed. The 10 commandments (actually there were more thtn 600 laws given) to Moses in the Wilderness, were all part of the Mosaic Law Code given to the Jews by God. They were to serve as a protection and separated them from the Nations and they became his people.

        Now at Passover when Christ met with his disciples he help them to understand that the Mosaic Law Code had been fulfilled and they would no longer be under Law. Recorded at Luke 22:19-20; It READ’S “Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.

        So he spoke about a NEW Covenant by virtue of his shed blood. That NEW Covenant was to Love…Love God and Love your Neighbor. So we aren’t under the Sabbath Law any longer.
        With that being said, if someone shops on the Sabbath he / she isn’t breaking any Scriptural Laws.
        And as far as asking everyone or posting a sign at the door if someone is divorced or not isn’t necessary. First off the Scriptures give examples when divorce is acceptable to God. Such as adultery or fornacation. Maybe a wife is being harmed by her mate. Under those conditions God doesn’t expect her to stay with him in a marriage relationship. And if we had a lot more time I could go into a lot more detail…but this isn’t the time or place.
        Christians are not haters. Christians are peaceable and love their neighbors. But the fact that someone is making their homosexual marriage a matter of fact, the Christian has to decide if his or her conscience will allow them to partake in the ceremony. Yes sin is sin and we all sin many times. But we don’t have to celebrate the sin. That’s all I am saying. .

      • Ok so you are saying that Gods laws have changed over the years. However God certainly didn’t accept divorce as was evidenced 40 years ago when my Mother was shunned at the door of the church by her priest when she divorced my drunken mean father. So basically what you are saying is that even church laws can change and do change as we evolve. I still don’t see the word homosexuality in the passage you tossed out there above, only your reference to it.

        My other point; and this is important, is that a couple coming into any business that caters to weddings is not asking you to “celebrate” or “participate” they are only making a business decision for services that you provide.

        Do want your caterer at the church witnessing your vows or… should they be at the reception hall doing what you hired them to do. Do you want your caterer boogieing out on the dance floor with Uncle Jack and drinking at the bar with your lush of a boss or do you want them serving the food managing their wait staff and picking up after your guests?

        Does the caterer “celebrate” with you at your wedding or are they (as
        they should be!) just too damn busy providing the service they were
        hired to do? It’s a job, simply put, just doing your job and providing for your family and tithing the church.

        All this talk of Christians, Homosexuals, Pizza and Cake is a smoke screen. What you may not like now about another religions “belief”; you know, like Muslims believing it’s their religious right to behead someone for being Christian. All those feelings of “but what about US, we as Christians are being lost!” Be ready to swallow that in the end; because at the end of this all; it’s not going to be about Christians, homosexuality, pizza or cake.

  43. Discrimination is “the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people” (got this from merriamwebster.com). Let us take this definition apart and see if I really am discriminating. “Unfairly treating” — well, seeing as how I treat everyone the same way — homosexual or heterosexual, I will gladly serve them unless they ask me to do something I think is a sin. And I expect to be treated the same way. If I walked into a business and asked for a service, but the owner believed he was sinning by providing me that, and politely declined, I would respect his constitutional right to do so and go elsewhere. So I’m not making others abide by a rule I wouldn’t abide by. So much for being unfair.
    “Treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people”- I have already stated that I am not treating homosexuals differently from anyone else. I don’t care who is asking me to do something I think is a sin . . . whether it’s a gay person, a straight person, a Muslim, a Christian, my friend, my grandma for heaven’s sake. It has to do with the action they’re asking me to do. If I believe it’s a sin, I won’t do it. Otherwise, I will serve them gladly. Even homosexuals. They will be treated the same as I treat everyone else. And that is this: I treat everyone with the principle that I will serve them unless they ask me to violate my religion. I’d be glad to do anything for a homosexual. Mow their lawn, wash their car, sell them a birthday cake, make them a hamburger, etc. Just like I would for anyone. However, if they or anyone who is not homosexual asks me to do something I think is a sin, I won’t. So much for singling out a certain person or category of people and treating them differently than others.
    I have just shown that I am not discriminating. By definition of the word discrimination. So please stop accusing me of it. Thank you.

  44. …the original premise of the 1957 and 1964 “civil-rights (for some)” acts were to prohibit “discrimination” in dealings with and by governments–not private businesses.
    Although somewhat well-intentioned, it has morphed into the monstrosity we live with today. “Freedom of association” was effectively abolished and replaced with (government sanctioned and forced) “public accommodation”.
    No longer is it acceptable to “screen your clientele”, even if it goes against your deeply-held religious convictions.
    Homosexuals have been targeting Christian-owned bakeries, photographers and other firms in order to harass and extract (actually extort) money from those business owners who do not support their “lifestyle”. Their “in your face” attitudes will eventually “be their downfall” when decent people have had enough.
    Tolerance does not mean acceptance and will never result in changed attitudes among those do not share their “lifestyle”. Hence the use of these so-called “civil-rights (for some)” laws as a club in which to “force” acceptance…

  45. As much as homosexuals vehemently deny it, homosexuality and pedophilia are inextricably linked. Almost all homosexuals have had their first homosexual “experience” introduced to them by an ADULT homosexual as pre-teen males. This, in itself constitutes homosexual pedophilia, which is criminal behavior in itself and is a way to destroy a pre-teen child for life.
    The so-called Roman Catholic priest “child abuse scandal” was actually homosexual pedophilia in action. Of course the “mainstream media” could not afford to offend the “homosexual community” by calling what it really was–thereby, the “play on words”, calling it “child sex abuse” rather than homosexual pedophilia–the true definition of their sordid behavior.
    I must play “devil’s advocate” when it comes to the Catholic church homosexual pedophilic priest “problem”…The Catholic church was “caught between a rock and a hard place” and had every right to be concerned about how many false claims would be made by those parishioners who belonged to the parish at the same time as this behavior was going on. Follow the money… Of course, there is (and was) absolutely NO EXCUSE for this homosexual pedophilic behavior…
    Sad to say, the homosexuals are at it again, encouraging the “psychiatric community” to change the definition of pedophilia from a psychiatric “disorder” to a mere “lifestyle”, not unlike what was done for homosexuality. Kinda sick, huh??

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here