Hidden Camera: Here’s What Happens When You Order a Gay Wedding Cake at a MUSLIM Bakery

msulim0bakers

by Gina Cassini | Top Right News

With the white-hot attack of the media and LGBT activists on Christian business owners who object to making products that endorse same-sex marriage, one group has been curiously absent from the national discussion: Muslims.

Steven Crowder noted how gay activists are so silent about Muslim oppression in Islamic nations — where “moderate” Iran routinely hangs gays from cranes in downtown Tehran, and ISIS throws gays off buildings every week.

Steven was curious to see what would happen if “gay Steve” went into Muslim bakeries in the heart of Dearborn, Michigan to see if they would make him a gay wedding cake.

We find out in this entertaining (and enlightening) video:

Whoa…we can’t wait to hear the deafening silence of the leftist hypocrites about this.

Will the smug Chris Cuomo bring a Muslim business owner on his show to ask him why he doesn’t shut down his company if they won’t cater to a gay wedding? How about Gary Tuchman? Will we see him lecturing a Muslim on how they aren’t following the principles of the Quran?

Don’t hold your breath.

, , , , , , , , , , ,


  • Steve Zero

    honestly, i’m for gay marriage, but the government should not be able to tell businesses that they can’t refuse service to whomever they want.

    • sherena111

      ♡♡♡♡get over 13kM0NTH@ag26:

      Going Here

      you Can

      Find Out,

      ►►►► http://WorldzWorkOnline.com/Service….<-

      ✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹✹

    • Guest

      ☑✔✪☯✬✭✮✯ Make 86 $ Per Hour By Computer….. Charlie . if you think Irene `s blog is great, last week I got a new Dodge after having made $9593 this-past/4 weeks and-more than, ten thousand this past-munth . with-out a doubt this is the most-comfortable work I have ever had . I began this seven months/ago and immediately was bringin home at least $85… per/hr . visit this site right here

      You Can Make Money At Home…Just Click on This Link…

      ➼➼➼➼ http://WWW.FindCash0nlineW0rk.C0m

      ✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫

    • Guest

      ☑✔✯ Make 86 $ Per Hour By Computer….. Charlie . if you think Irene `s blog is great, last week I got a new Dodge after having made $9593 this-past/4 weeks and-more than, ten thousand this past-munth . with-out a doubt this is the most-comfortable work I have ever had . I began this seven months/ago and immediately was bringin home at least $85… per/hr . visit this site right here

      You Can Make Money At Home…Just Click on This Link…

      ➼➼➼➼ http://WWW.FindCash0nlineW0rk.C0m

      ✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫

      • How

        How do comments like this make it past “moderation”

        • Reader

          It hasn’t. The page appears to allow posts that are awaiting moderation to still be viewed.

    • Bob

      if you are in business to serve the publick then serve ALL of the public or close down.

      • Joe W.

        Go to the devil, Bob.

      • Lori Edens

        So your communist?

        • a mere skeptic

          That’s a jump to conclusions. As a libertarian, I fully support Bob’s position. See my other comments for explanation.

          Note: I am a libertarian, not an anarchist. The government, while ideally limited, still has a role to protect its citizens. In this case, it is protecting its homosexual citizens from discrimination. If the opportunity arose, it should protect its Christian citizens from the same type of discrimination.

          • heather

            As a libertarian you should be for the constitution. Civil right and constitution are not one in the same. No where in the constitution does it say I must violate my religious beliefs for another. As a Christian I love everyone, I pray for enemies daily. But as a Christian I will not compromise my religious belief or condone what goes against it. As a libertarian the stance would be you have the right to be gay, to marry but it does not mean I have to be the one to marry you , host your wedding or even bake your cake… That’s my right….

          • a mere skeptic

            I think my last comment in response to this was deleted, but I believe the constitution is a flawed document. It sanctioned slavery and had that infamous 3/5ths compromise. It was a product of the era that it was created in and was no way ever perfect. It had some great ideas and was revolutionary, but it was not infallible.

            I voted for Gary Johnson. I do want as minimal government as possible, but I do not believe that a complete dismantling of it should be in order. Rather, I am open to the idea of working across the aisle with my fellow Americans who happen to disagree with me, which honestly is both Republicans and Democrats, and more recently right-wing and laissez-faire libertarians who are really just Republicans trying to sound fashionable (the rightwing) or anarchists (the laissez-faire).

            Although I support the protection of human beings from discrimination as is one of the primary functions of government, we may agree on other issues. I am concerned about government overspending and want as little intrusion into my private life as possible. If this were a case about an individual’s private beliefs and not the beliefs of businesses that are open to the public, I would likely support for your religious exclusion even though I strongly disagree with it. That, however, is not the case at hand.

          • The Constitution had flaws, but much of it was good especially the bill of rights, which protects freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            And you should be against the government forcing anyone to do business with anyone, No one has a right to make me do business with them.

          • Joe Tokoph

            limited government? your brain is over saturated in cum. Your not a libertarian your retarded.

          • a mere skeptic

            My brain is saturated in cum? You clearly have nothing reasonable to add to the conversation.

          • Greg Whaley

            and that is precisely what Indiana is attempting to do with its religious freedom law.

          • siren1873

            Even Thomas Jefferson, whom libertarians love to revisit history on, was all for religious freedoms. This “wall of separation” was to protect religious denominations from being forced to give up their religious freedoms.
            http://www.religioustolerance.org/virg_bil.htm

          • a mere skeptic

            Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. He had some good ideas, but he also had some really bad ideas. It is not my wish to return back to the late 1700’s where women and blacks were effectively property. You will never be able to get me with appeal to authority. The idea that something is correct because of the person who supports it is a logical fallacy.

          • Jefferson was not perfect. He was against slavery. Inherited them, and he tried to get rid of his slaves several times, but never could because it would bankrupt him, so he chose himself. Many who hated slavery but inherited them also felt letting them go into society would be harsh and reslaved (illegally), so they kept them and treated them like family or business partners. Not saying this was the right way to handle this or think, but it is what it was.

            But you gave a logical fallacy that he owning slaves made him not pretty brilliant on Government vs Liberty.

          • Their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

      • You serve men, Bob?

        • Guest

          ➢➢➢➢86$ PER HOUℛ@ai4:

          Going Here you

          Can Find Out

          ►►► ::>>https://WorkOnlineLabs.com/get/position

          ✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶✶

      • Bob Edwards

        y they have a religious view why does being gay supercede their beliefs along as its done respectfully
        and they COULD just go to another b but they sue because its an agendausiness

      • farkward B

        Nobody should listen to the Gaystapo…

      • D_B_B

        Wrong, Bob. This is not about Civil Rights. This is about Religious Freedom, guaranteed in the Constitution. There are plenty of other options for gay people other than suing one baker or business because of their RELIGIOUS beliefs.

      • William Owen

        That’s just it bob. Businesses in America are PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. They are not in the business of serving the “public”. That is the job of local, state, and federal government to be the public sector. Private owned businesses are not public. They are owned by individuals who can tell you to get off their property or face trespassing charges for being on private owned land.

        • Name

          I agree. If the private business doesn’t beleive in it, what is the problem of them going somewhere else?

          • Kathy

            What an absolutely asinine question!!! Two people can walk across the street….. A business with all the equipment, expense of employees, taxes, building, the move, etc., etc., ….. Uh gee, Name, I wonder which one is the more intelligent of the two choices?????

        • T42NE1

          Why don’t you learn something and read the definition of PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

          • William Owen

            The way you simply get around that is to simply call the police and have the people escorted off your property without giving a reason. Also the law you linked me doesn’t say anything about sexual orientation.

          • T42NE1

            Good luck w/ that. Hope you have money for lawyers.

          • William Owen

            Again, if you don’t give a reason then they have no way to cry “racism”, “bigotry”, “homophobe”, “(fill in the blank here)”. I have actually called the police and removed a group of people because I did not like them. He even said as the police were removing him “I’m going to sue this place!”……5 years later…nothing…ROFL. As long as you do not tell them the reason you are having them removed off your private property, there is literally nothing they can do. Technicalities are a bitch huh?

          • a mere skeptic

            That isn’t necessarily true, circumstantial evidence is permitted in the court of law to allow the trier of fact to infer your true intent.

          • But we shouldn’t have to hide our reason, William. We have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

          • William Owen

            I agree with you, we shouldn’t have to. Rush Limbaugh said that everyone needs to start refusing out of respect for Islam. The left is so scared to offend Muslims that if we use that for a reason then leftist idiots will leave bakeries, flower shops, and pizza places alone because Islam breaks a leftist logic.

          • RHO1953

            It isn’t a public accommodation. That would be hotel room or a simple sale.

          • T42NE1

            Wrong. “Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public — including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment — are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.”

          • Not wrong. That is BS, and wrong of courts to claim it.

          • GoneFishing

            If you know anything about laws, you would know that laws are subject to creation, change and abolishment. Private business is finally rebelling against intrusion by activists and politicians. Business owners are fed-up with government entities and militant activists who want to compel people to run their private businesses in a manner that is contrary to the business owners’ ideals and beliefs. It’s one thing to have a financial stake in public utilities, stocks, etc., it’s quite another when the ‘public’ is not invested in someone’s private business.
            The only laws written in stone are the Ten Commandments. All other laws are provisional.

          • T42NE1

            Blah, blah, blah. Provide any physical evidence of the Ten Commandments. Or anything from anyone who actually saw them.

          • GoneFishing

            I don’t have to prove anything to you…You choose your own beer.
            But I can’t help noticing that you completely deflected from the meat of my comment. YOU will never have a say about my business practices. Basta! End of lecture.

          • T42NE1

            I, via my state and federal legislators, already have a say about your business practices. Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

          • GoneFishing

            You can choose to believe what you want…you can’t change what I believe, much less my religious convictions. “Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.”, bub.

          • ophelia

            Who is trying to change your religious convictions?

          • GoneFishing

            Me thinks your question indicates you’re either naive and not paying attention to current events, or you’re a troll masquerading as a Christian, as you claim elsewhere.

          • Those trying to force him to sell products to people who are using his product of his labor to glorify acts his religion says are sinful.

          • Rebecca Smith

            So childish! Did you pick up that habit from our do nothing but try to turn everyone in America against one another president because it sure sounds like the beginning of one of his toddler tantrums!?

          • Jim Trent

            What’s next? You going to say Well, my mother can beat up your mother? The more you post the more you sounds like a spoiled 12 year old.

          • Tyrants forcing people to violate the ONLY law that applies, the US Constitution, which protects the actual rights of the individual which includes the business owner: Freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination. ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

          • K Mead

            Really? “Bla, bla, bla” is the extent of your knowledge of that of which you speak?

          • Jim Trent

            K Mead what do you expect from an idiot who thinks their intelligent contribution is to quote wikipedia?

          • jonathan

            I know a whole book of evidence and witnesses who saw the ten commandments and abode by them. also include the man who inscribed them in the stone. The book Is the Bible. Gods word is the living word and the truth.

          • me

            @T42NE1, blah blah blah you show me evidence that your man made laws apply to me! Proof it! Man does not give me my rights and they sure don’t have the right to abuse my way of life or beliefs to accommodate their own!!! Do you think wikipedia makes your point more credible? Because it does not but try again lol

          • ophelia

            I can prove it. stop paying your taxes, mowing your lawn or any other thing in the law books, They will show up, keep refusing to comply, they will haul you off eventually, then you will see they apply just fine…so do handcuffs, one size fits all.

          • Some laws should be obeyed others the government has no authority to enforce on us. Obey the good laws, and like King and Gandhi disobey the unauthorized ones.

          • The ONLY law that applies is the US Constitution, which protects the actual rights of the individual which includes the business owner: Freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination. ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

          • ophelia

            Yes, private business are rebelling & most are going under, because the general public doesn’t want a dose of your personal belief with their cupcake. I don’t want to hear from celebrities & I certainly don’t want to hear it from the bakery down the street. Sell me a cupcake, be in a movie, then shut up about your private business. It’s not why I am here. 😉 And FYI – I’m a straight Christian mom,,,still won’t go into a bigoted business. Plenty of places to spend my money. So they can keep refusing services & I’ll keep refusing patronage. You see how that has worked out so far for small business. Not well. I am not bullying, I am voting. 😉

          • GoneFishing

            You may be “a straight Christian mom”, but that doesn’t mean this Christian takes any stock in the nonsense you wrote. You’re misinformed if you believe small businesses are going out of business as a result of homosexuals and their activists. That’s rubbish. Those who are are suffering under a continual bad economy.
            The Bible does not tell Christians to deny goods and services to sinners. But, it also does NOT tell us to participate in their sinful lifestyle either…or anyone elses’ for that matter. And legally, the 1st Amendment protects that ability to discern. This debate is about those who would deny constitutional religious freedom and the attempt to fabricate a protected class that thinks the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to them. If you allow your religious freedom to be oppressed and subjugated by Atheists, that’s your business.

          • ophelia

            I am not talking about “homosexuals & their activists”…I am
            talking about any business that chooses to use discriminatory practices
            toward anyone. And I am soooo confused how anyone thinks cake making is
            participating in anything. When I got married I did not think the cake
            baker was participating in my wedding, I can assure you. Whatever a
            person makes up in their head doesn’t make it true. I don’t think my
            baker thought she was a participant either, but she could have deluded
            herself into thinking so I suppose, but she seems stable minded, so I
            doubt it. I have made cakes for weddings as a favor as I am decently
            good at it & when on a budget, it makes a nice wedding present &
            in those cases I was participating because I was also a guest…if you
            paid me to make one, I cannot conjure up how that would equal
            participation.

            I do not think religious freedoms are
            being oppressed when someone, in business, is told that a customer is a
            customer…If a religion is so thinly built that merely selling certain
            goods or services (the same goods or services you sell daily) to a
            person of a different beliefs system (that can be constituted by some as
            sinful) is in fact infringing on your religion, perhaps being in
            business is a bad idea, lest it totally run your faith off course.

            These
            same bakeries that are unhappy about gay cakes are making baby shower
            cakes all.the.time for unwed mothers, many who got pregnant on purpose
            & are not married, on purpose. I promise you. Does that also mean
            they are participating in premarital sex & promoting childbearing
            out of wedlock via cake making? I doubt it.

          • GoneFishing

            Sorry, but you really are “soooo confused”.
            By participation, I’m not referring to (i.e.) the simple act of baking a cake. For example: If I were a baker, I would bake and ice the cake. No Problem. But I would not decorate with same-sex groom-groom or bride-bride figures, nor with any wording that condones homosexuality because by doing so, I would be condoning, furthering and participating in a sinful activity that violates my religious convictions. Why you think a customer shouldn’t simply patronize a business that is willing to do these things instead of compelling by edict another to act against their religious freedom is a mystery.
            Fact is, it’s a sign of how far we’ve fallen from the Founders’ vision of a nation where the government kept its hands off your business, your religion and your rights. This battle isn’t about a gay person’s right to be served; this fight is about whether a gay rights activist can use the government and the courts to coerce someone into doing something that violates their faith.
            The idea that Americans would have to choose between violating their faith or losing their businesses is an insult to those who risked everything to found a country where religious liberty was first and foremost protected from the government. You are in no position to define what qualifies another persons’ religious belief, you can only speak for your own.
            Why this logic escapes you is a riddle to me.

          • ophelia

            Why you think it’s logic escapes me.

            FWIW…in the ACTUAL cases with bakeries…at no time have any of them been asked to put words on a cake (who does that? Do you go to wedding with wording on the cakes…ever?) nor was it about putting figurines on. In every case they already contracted for the cake, took the order with deposit & then realized it was for a gay/lesbian couple & chose to break the contract. These suits have been for breach of contract. The fact that they could write up a while contract without realizing it was a gay wedding already shows you, nothing special. Usually placement of any statues is done on scene by the people who ordered the cake…if at all. Most often today there are no people on a cake, unless it is humorous. The rest of the time it’s all frosting flowers & such or occasionally real flowers & ribbon. I can’t tell you the last time I saw people on a cake, sometimes back when I saw those swirly stair cases & fountains…so like 15 or 20 yrs ago. One of my BFF’s is a cake baker…we live in a fairly rural/small town area, so I asked her, in the 5 yrs she has officially been in business if she’s ever written on a wedding cake (cakes are the only thing she does…event cakes..wedding, showers, anniversaries) and she said she has never written on a bride’s cake nor a grooms cake & that she personally has never placed any ornamentation on the top of a cake, but merely provided a space for it & a small pouch of icing to help secure it on site. I am sure that has to be typical. Once you touch someone’s breakables, you are liable for them & occasionally people still do things like use their parents or grandparents cake toppers. So she never handles the toppers.

          • You are making false equivalencies here by making covert Ad hominid attacks: they must be ‘deluded or not stable minded’ IF they think baking a cake makes them a art of their wedding, as well as believing that writing Joe love Stan forever does not make you a part of the ceremony is not true. God says do not not let anything you do glorify sin, so IF you know its a gay wedding or must write in on the cake then you are participating in glorifying it. Also what about the photographer, caterer, wedding planner, musicians, DjsS? They most certainly are a part of the wedding.

          • Its more than religious freedom its also: Freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination. ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

          • GoneFishing

            I agree, Kirby. I was concentrating on the religious aspect of the matter because it’s what the article, and most of the conversation elsewhere, is attacking the most. As I noted elsewhere, homosexual activists are going out of their way to use the government and the courts to coerce and compel others to do something that violates their faith.

          • They are going under ONLY when they are sued. False argument the bakeries are not preaching. They are denying services for gay weddings, they can see its a gay wedding, consider it sin, don’t want to be part of the obvious sin, and are politely refusing.

          • Jim Trent

            Oh lookie… another moron that thinks wikipedia is something to quote as an intelligent, factual database. Most of it is pretty accurate but it is only as accurate as the public that adds to it. People who quote wiki IMO are the same people that believe everything MSNBC says (the lowest rated and lowest trusted “news” station. You really couldn’t strain your brain to find something legitimate?

            A place of “public accommodation” is defined as “an establishment either affecting interstate commerce or supported by state action, and falling into one of the following categories: (1) a lodging for transient guests located within a building with more than five rooms for rent; (2) a facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including such facilities located within retail establishments and gasoline stations; (3) any place of exhibition or entertainment; (4) any establishment located within an establishment falling into one of the first three categories, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that covered establishment. Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104830, 39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

            That took me 10 seconds to find.

          • T, the court was wrong. Private businesses open to the public are not public places, only places owned by the government are public, ever since humans created the distinction between privately and publicly owned lands.

        • ophelia

          They are not obsolved from discrimination laws. You can’t legally tell a nursing mom to cover up or leave, because the state laws that protect her right to nurse trump your skeeviness. She has the right, legally, to nurse covered or not, anywhere she & the baby are legally allowed to be. SO how does that fit into telling anyone to get off their property? It doesn’t. If someone is being a jerk, loitering, etc, then yes, you can tell “anyone” to leave. You cannot tell people to leave based on discriminatory practices, as already outlines a million times. I can say, “Hey William, I don’t like *you*”, and kick you out for that. I can’t say “hey William, I hate men, get out”…that is discrimination and violates your rights.

          • William Owen

            You just repeated what I stated at the end of your statement…..I am fully aware that I can kick people out even if it is secretly for a discriminatory reason as long as I do not state it. Example: I see 2 men walk into my restaurant and they are displaying all the signs that they are a gay couple. I walk up to them and simply say “Sir and Sir, My name is William Owen, I am the owner of this restaurant and the land it sits on, I am politely asking the both of you to leave”. If they ask me “Why?”, I will simply respond with my statement again “Sir and Sir, I asked you to leave and this is the second time I am asking you to leave, the third time I ask you to leave I will be calling the police” (basically refusing to give them a reason to avoid any sort of political bullshit, I will also have one of my employees videotape this from a distance with sound so they cannot claim anything false). It is rather simple to avoid political problems as long as you know how to word things correctly and avoid using particular terms and words. For your information though, I do not own any businesses but I am merely trying to show you how to handle the situation in a manner I view without any backlash. The worst they could say is that I was “unfair” which all I have to say to that is “stick and stones”.

      • Jeff R

        Wrong Bob, this is about freedom to chose not to participate in immoral anti-God, anti-Christ behavior, like immoral homosexual relationships, which are clearly against Christian Scripture.

        • GZeus

          Anti-Christ? Jesus treated EVERYONE equally. Broke bread with sinners, whores, and righteous alike. You should follow example of your Savior

          • Greg Whaley

            but not with gays if you take the Bible literally GZeus.

          • ophelia

            The New Testament? Those are all New Testament versus, you know…the part with Jesus. Where are gays in the New Testament?

          • In Romans and a few other places.

          • siren1873

            He also forgave these people and told them to sin no more. They were to give up their sinful lifestyles and follow His teachings. He did not participate in their sinful actions and say it was okay to keep sinning. He broke bread with these people to rebuke them of their sins, not condone them.
            So if we are to follow Christ’s example, it would be to let people know that there is forgiveness of their sins through the blood of Christ, His death on the cross that he suffered for all of us, and His resurrection. In the words of Christ, “Go and sin no more”.

          • a mere skeptic

            Mark 12:31 ESV

            The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

            Luke 6:27 ESV

            “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

            Matthew 22:36-40 ESV

            “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

            Romans 13:8-10 ESV

            Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

            Matthew 7:12 ESV

            “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

            Luke 10:25-37 ESV

            And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

            30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion.34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.35 And the next day he took out two denarii[a] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

            Romans 15:2 ESV

            Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

            1 John 4:16 ESV

            So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

            Matthew 19:19 ESV

            Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

            John 15:12 ESV

            “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

            Matthew 7:1-2 ESV

            “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

            Colossians 3:12-14 ESV

            Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

            1 John 4:21 ESV

            And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

            Ephesians 5:1 ESV

            Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.

            James 2:8 ESV

            If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

            John 3:17 ESV

            For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

            Romans 13:9 ESV

            For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

            Matthew 22:39 ESV

            And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

            John 15:10-12 ESV

            If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”

            Matthew 5:43-48 ESV

            43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

            1 John 3:23 ESV

            And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

            1 Thessalonians 3:12-13 ESV

            And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

          • mee

            So I should love the Robbers who beat me, stripped me and left me for dead? Not gonna happen!

          • Most of those verses apply to fellow Christians, though some refer to the sinner. But the New Testament also says IF a brother sins, go to him, if he denies you come back with a friend, if he denies the two, take it to the church, if he still does not repent, then treat him like a heathen, which men’s to tell them you love them, but to go and sin no more.

          • dskofstad

            If Jesus is going to be your standard for proper behavior, then flipping over tables and chasing people with whips has to be included in the list.

          • Rhonda

            No, that would be how he would deal with the Pharisees and Sadducees in the halls of Congress…..

          • BUT, you forget, after they committed to him, he told them to GO AND SIN NO MORE!!!

      • John Gallion

        Ya! Heil Hitler! You must obey!

      • BOB – you seem like you would have done well in Nazi Germany. Is that where you are from?

      • passn8ldy

        Bob – so – your feelings are more important than mine?!! What if we said “We are in business to serve the public but we are willing to ONLY serve gay men and women.” Would you close us down then. GET A LIFE! This is still America. I have seen signs in restaurants and stores since I was a child which said “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.” This isn’t NEW!!! And FYI – I am NOT a homophobe. I live in Washington State and I voted FOR the rights of gays to marry. It’s not about that. It’s about the rights of other people besides the gays, the blacks, the illegals – there’s a whole demographic that you aren’t even paying attention to and guess what?! We are about 75% of the American citizens. So – back off – WE HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!!!!

        • a mere skeptic

          I wouldn’t close you down, I would just find for the plaintiff suing you and award them damages. You are refusing to serve heterosexuals which is a sexual orientation. Heterosexuals receive just as much protection as homosexuals (haha, ironic sentence given that the opposite is true). The standard goes both ways and it applies to gender, religion, race, national origin, sexual orientation, and other protected classes.

          Edit: Also, putting up a sign reserving rights does not mean that those rights exist. It’s like the equivalent of driving around with a sign in your window saying “I reserve the right to refuse the jurisdictional power of the state” and then trying to argue that because of your “right,” you do not have to stop when a police officer tries to pull you over on the highway. Just because you expressly reserve it does not imply that it exists.

          • Actually learn your laws, the Federal Government has no protections for Gays, Very few states do and even less towns do. WRONG!! And their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

        • Arthur Morse

          Exactly. Like the old saying – your right to throw a punch stops at the end of my nose.

          • Well they have no right to make me do commerce with them, so yeah.

        • grendal113

          you gave up your rights for profit when you begged to have a business license. You promised to serve the public knowing you had no control over who enters your doors. Don’t like it give up your permit. or make it a members only business.

          • LoonyLefty

            So you are making a case for not getting a permit. I agree – no permit should be required.

          • BS, very few business licences say that, and there are few laws to back that up.

            Actually learn your laws, the Federal Government has no protections for Gays, Very few states do and even less towns do. WRONG!! And their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

          • grendal113

            Umm look if a business collects taxes then guess what, they work for the government as a tax collector. That is why they can’t violate civil liberties.

          • That is non-sense. And no lawyer or constitutionalist would agree with you. And a privately owned business not making a cake for someone is not violating civil liberties.

            Also, companies should not have to collect taxes for the government. Let the government do it themselves.

          • Whatever, that is the most preposterous statement I have ever heard. The business does not work for the government legally because it is forced to collect taxes for the government. Legal and constitutional scholars would laugh at your statement. And it is NOT against civil liberties for a privately owned business to not bake a cake for anyone for any reason.

            Besides, the government should NOT force businesses to do their work for them. The government should collect its own taxes. To force another to do your work for you without pay is called slavery.

          • Whatever, that is the most preposterous statement I have ever heard. The business does not work for the government legally because it is forced to collect taxes for the government. Legal and constitutional scholars would laugh at your statement. And it is NOT against civil liberties for a privately owned business to not bake a cake for anyone for any reason.

            Besides, the government should NOT force businesses to do their work for them. The government should collect its own taxes. To force another to do your work for you without pay is called slavery. smh.

          • Where is my comment?

          • Whatever, that is the most preposterous statement I have ever heard. The business does not work for the government legally because it is forced to collect taxes for the government. Legal and constitutional scholars would laugh at your statement. And it is NOT against civil liberties for a privately owned business to not bake a cake for anyone for any reason.

            Besides, the government should NOT force businesses to do their work for them. The government should collect its own taxes. To force another to do your work for you without pay is called slavery. SMH

      • Fulton Loftis

        Having run a small business off and on for quite a few years I can honestly say that, although I have provided services to the public, willingly because that is how I get paid, there have been some contracts I have refused base on my own personal feelings about the situations involved or even the character of the people involved. If anyone had desired to bring suit, so be it, not really a world ender for me. The whole point of being in charge of your business is running it as you want to, not as someone else, or the government, wants you to

      • Chia-Li Sung

        boooohooooo, there’s no effing law mandating that….and learn to spell for your knuckles’ sake….

      • Greg Whaley

        you obviously didn’t watch the clip that started this discussion or you’re one of those people that believes your rights, wants and needs outweigh everyone else’s. this is not nazi germany and you seem to want it to be. live and let live or are you going to be the one that goes and tells the muslims that they need to abide by “your” rules too?

      • siren1873

        So, Bob, if someone enters a gay bakery and wants a quote from the Bible saying how “homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord” written on their cake, the gay baker should be forced to make that cake which is against his beliefs? No, he has a right to refuse his services to that person.

      • RHO1953

        Not in a business where personal interaction is required. A simple sale, yes. If someone walks in and wants to buy a muffin, absolutely. But not where someone is forced to pen something offensive or be personally involved.

      • K Mead

        Bob ….if you want something done, do it yourself. It is not about anything more than equality. I DEMAND the equal right to refuse to make a cake in the shape of or with photos of ….anything I deem to be pornographic or anything else that I am (by virtue of my virtues or religious beliefs or basic fundamental opinion of right and wrong) opposed to. I would refuse to create anything demonic or nasty and I should have that right. I am not taking your right away from you to do, be or say anything YOU want do, be or say; however, no one should have the right to inflict someone else’s opinion on me. I do only my version of wholesome because I am the one doing it. You go to religion classes and learn – then we’ll talk. OH!! What’s that you say? You don’t want religion forced on you? Oh I see how it is, you are the only one with the right to force something on others that they don’t believe in. Get you head out of the dark and accept that everyone has rights.

      • Jim Trent

        So then one could say if a strip club is in business then they should serve all of the public including kids? Otherwise that is age discrimination. What, kids in a strip club is illegal? So was gay marriage and people still pushed for it.

        Everyone discriminates everyday for different reasons. It’s all based on the beliefs they have. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

      • Kathy

        Boy Bob, would you go hungry in a hurry. You’d also be short an awful lot of other things as well. Better to keep your mouth shut on this point.

  • patrick quinn

    Well played Steven..

  • Anja J

    Oh my, where are Ellen Degeneres and George Takei with this video lol. Great points made sir. I agree with you 1000%

    • backell

      Actually it’s total nonsense.

      • Ryno Lascavio

        you obviously only see one side of this issue. Its people like you who refuse to put yourself in the position of the other side, and that makes you a WILLFUL ignorant.

        • backell

          Yes, I actually do only see one side of it. The only side is that you don’t get a side in determining what other people do with their lives. The problem isn’t that I only see one side. It’s that you actually see more than one.

          Do you get it? It’s not YOUR religion here. IT’S THEIRS that YOU are violating. THEY DON’T HAVE TO PASS YOUR RELIGOUS test. Understand? THERE is no other side to that. Just like you can’t be forced to pass anyone else’s.

          This doesn’t make me “willfully ignorant.” I KNOW what you’re saying. I just know it’s wrong.

          The Civil Rights Act determines that if you’re operating a PRIVATELY opened business open to the PUBLIC that you can’t discriminate who you do business with based on RELIGION.

          Making someone pass YOUR religious test before you do business with them is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW.

          The problem is that you are apparently ignorant of THAT.

          • Ryno Lascavio

            What you fail to see is that these people dont have a problem “serving” anyone. But being made to be part of a ritual that goes against their beliefs is not right.
            I see your point. But I also see the other side. If gays were being refused service alltogether, that would be wrong. But being made to participate in something that goes against personal dogma shouldnt be allowed.
            Besides, this law only allows business owners the right to rufuse participation, not service in general. And then they have to present their case before a judge who will make a determination in whether the business owner is overreating.
            I would probably be a lot more sympothetic to the gay cause if they were not putting people out of business, making death threats and forcing people to go into hiding for merely expressing their beliefs.
            Even if you are right on this issue, the LGBT community is TOTALLY in the wrong for how they are going about dealing with this issue. The lynch mob they have created is counterproductive in the long term.

          • backell

            “What you fail to see is that these people dont have a problem “serving” anyone. But being made to be part of a ritual that goes against their beliefs is not right.”

            What you fail to see is that they don’t get a vote. They’re being “made to be a part of a ritual.’ They’re conducting a business transaction.

            The law states that if it’s a good or service offered to the public, it must be offered to EVERYONE, regardless of their religion. What’s not right is this notion that someone has to pass a religious test to be a patron.

            And you can try all this double speak about wedding or not wedding, but it’s not different under the law. You can’t offer the service only to people who agree with your religious rest. It’s against the law.

            If you have a problem with obeying that law, get a different business.

          • Kathy

            backell, most people don’t want to be constantly informed about someone else’s sex life. This is only what the openly gay life is touting. It is flaunting their sex life and it is totally unnecessary and disturbing to many people. It is also (and here comes my flogging for the next 10 days) wrong. Most people, whether they admit it or not, know this inherently. It is disordered behavior and if a business owner does not want to decorate a cake for a couple of disordered people with a message stating a disordered, albeit heartfelt, thought, then the business owner by law, doesn’t have to. And the gay community should just back off and leave it alone. They have become the loudest minority in America which has become just one more split in our society.

          • ophelia

            I have walked around hugely pregnant MANY TIMES totally flaunting that I porked my husband. What a disgustoid I am & how anyone could walk by without envisioning how that baby got inside there is totally beyond me. And worse yet, my wedding ring didn’t fit from about 6 weeks due to puffy hands & feet…so TOMS Of people must have thought that i was a single skank just out boning whoever. Heck it might’ve been a multiracial baby I was carrying…maybe i didn’t know who the father even was. EEEEEK. How did I let myself walk around flaunting my sex life that way??? ANd with multiple kids. Heck, here I was with little ones, totally preggers again, people must have been envisioning how often we were banging to get those kids. This is truly embarrassing. I never realized how easy it was to flaunt your sexuality until now.l Thanks for helping me see the error in my ways. I never realized i was constantly informing people of my sex life just by virtue of being in public, but clearly, if gay people are, pregnancy is like a beacon of sexuality flaunting.

          • Lynne Buchanan

            ad hominem

          • Capdragon

            Hardly, Lynne,

          • grendal113

            Rofl good job! Lmao

          • backell

            “backell, most people don’t want to be constantly informed about someone else’s sex life. This is only what the openly gay life is touting. It is flaunting their sex life and it is totally unnecessary and disturbing to many people. ”

            They aren’t touting their sex life. They’re just not hiding their orientation and being treated like second-class citizens.

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            Only in leftist lala land does a constitutional right to religious freedom somehow mean that you’re not allowed to follow your religion. This is how twisted these people are. They’re literally arguing that the constitution means the exact opposite of what it clearly says and people are buying it. Disgusting.

          • backell

            “Only in leftist lala land does a constitutional right to religious freedom somehow mean that you’re not allowed to follow your religion.”

            Well, I don’t know what happens in “leftist lala land” but here in America, your freedom of religion isn’t getting violated by selling cakes to gay people.

            This is how twisted people are. They’re arguing that if they can’t tell other people how to behave, THEIR rights are being violated.

            THAT is the exact opposite of what it clearly says. And yes, I agree it’s disgusting.

          • elizadoolittle

            I think what you fail to see is that marriage is not just a civil ceremony. For thousands of years it has been a religious sacrament that is still cherished deeply by devout Catholics and Christians and that is where the overlap is. This isn’t just a birthday party, their wedding cake is part of a celebration of a holy sacrament. That is why they can’t do it. It transcends the notion of “business transaction” in the hearts of people that believe God created marriage between one man and one woman. The stakes are very, very high for them. The question is: Just as LBGT feels they must have the right to conduct business for their weddings anywhere they want, do people with religious beliefs about marriage have rights too? And, how can we make concessions to preserve these rights? Concessions have to be made in certain situations.

          • JimBob22

            It also has nothing to do with religious people telling other people how to behave. It is very simply saying that you can do that, but I won’t be part of it. Its not a religious test or judgement. Its a refusal to participate.

          • backell

            What’s the difference between that and a religious test? What’s the difference between, “I won’t do business with you unless you abide by my religious beliefs” and a religious test?

            Seems to me this whole thing is a strawman. Doing business isn’t the issue. Doing the business for a certain occasion isn’t the problem.

            The only problem is that the person doesn’t agree with the nature of the occasion.

            And the whole, “You can do that, but I won’t be part of it” might not ring so hollow if the same people who are saying this aren’t also fighting tooth and nail to keep the laws against them doing that. And this is part of the disingenuous of the whole conversation.

            Anyway, it is LITERALLY discriminating (not doing business with someone) based on your religion. How is that different from religious discrimination? How is it different from saying, “I don’t agree with interracial marriage, so I’m not going to make a cake for THAT wedding?

            And there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits doing business with a homosexual And why would you do business with other kinds of immoral “weddings?”

            This all makes it hollow and weak. It doesn’t feel like it’s about religion. It feels like it’s about spite and bitterness.

          • Because private citizens can do that ONLY the government can NOT.

          • Montanagirl1

            The hell it is not. My religion says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I will certainly not bake a cake or enjoin in a ritual ceremony to celebrate that which is against my beliefs. But it’s ok for the Muslims? That is no law at all that discriminates against one religion in favor of another,and should be ignored at every opportunity. How dare anyone say to someone who has been a Christian for decades that they MUST surrender to the state in order to practice their beliefs and their religion. That is not freedom and it is not right and is protected by the FIRST amendment, fool.

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            Apparently in leftist lala land, not selling a cake is equal to “telling other people how to behave” and must be punished.

            This is how twisted these people are. They believe that they actually have the right to force others to work for them. That’s called slavery.

          • backell

            Apparently, in right-wing koo-koo bird land, “slaves” walked around telling other people how to live their lives. Hyperbole much?

            I suppose if I subdued you physically, forced you to work for free, and dictated your entire life to you, you’d have a REALLY good point.

            But since I’m paying you to do the thing that you do for a living, and I’m really asking you to keep your opinion of my personal life to yourself, it’s not REALLY the same thing, is it?

            But I know why you have to resort to these kinds of false equivalence. Because you know that if you ACTUALLY stick to the real point, you’d have to admit that the ONLY reason you want to not sell the cake to a PAYING customer is that you want to tell them how they can live their lives.

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            Leftist lala landers refuse to acknowledge slavery.

            Slaves were compensated for their work with free room and board. The fact that you compensate for the work does not change the fact that you are FORCING the work, and like the slaves, if the people refuse to do the work the government punishes them. A free worker is free to choose to not work and suffer only the loss of the pay and benefits he would earn by working. A slave is punished beyond that loss to ensure their obedience. Those who are forced to serve are not free.

            You are refusing to stick to the point, instead ranting about people “telling other people how they can live their lives.” Why do you believe that you have any right to force people to serve you?

          • backell

            You are insane. Really, selling a wedding cake is just like slavery.

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            Ad hominem against facts. The true face of the left.

          • backell

            And for the record, you’re NOT free to decide who to sell things to. The law says if you sell it to the public it has to be available to ANYONE in the public.

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            Funny how gays and friends suddenly care so much about the law when they believe it’s on their side.

            Where was your reverence for the law when it said gays couldn’t be married?

          • backell

            Ad hominem against facts. The true face of the right.

            “Where was your reverence for the law when it said gays couldn’t be married?”

            So should we revert to slavery again too? Oh wait. You’re against that.

            Make up your mind flip-flopper.

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            An ad hominem would require a personal attack. I simply asked a question, which apparently made you hot under the collar. I wonder why that might be?

            In any case, I’m not the one pounding the law here. I’ve flip-flopped on nothing. You have. So answer the question, if you can.

          • backell

            “Leftist lala landers” was meant as a compliment.

            And I haven’t “flip-flopped” on anything. Advocating for CHANGING a law isn’t the same as BREAKING the law. Such CLEAR DISTINCTIONS apparently are beyond you.

            But you seem to be against changing laws, which means that you think that we should have never changed the laws to make slavery illegal. Yet you’re complaining about slavery.

            So are you against changing laws or slavery? You can’t have it both ways.

            Either way, BREAKING is the issue here. Are you for or against breaking the law? You said you’re not flip-flopping, but you’re doing nothing but that.

            You can’t figure out how you feel about obeying the law.
            You can’t figure out how you feel about ad hominem attacks.
            You can’t figure out how you feel about slavery.

            But you go on and tell other people how behave, even though you can’t get your own ethics worked out.

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            If you’re not against breaking the law, then why are you advocating breaking the law? The highest law in the land, the Constitution of the United States, directly and expressly prohibits your position with both it’s first amendment and it’s thirteenth.

            You complain of false equivalence in your other posts, but continue to falsely equivocate ‘refusing to actively contribute to a wedding’ with ‘telling others how to live;’ a stretch so tenuous as to be comical.

            You openly rage against ‘telling others how to live’ while actually telling others how to live.

            You claim that my ethics are in disarray, but you are clearly contradicting yourself at every turn.

            And that’s not even getting into your open support for slavery, just so long as it’s called something else.

          • backell

            “If you’re not against breaking the law, then why are you advocating breaking the law? The highest law in the land, the Constitution of the United States, directly and expressly prohibits your position with both it’s first amendment and it’s thirteenth.”

            None of this is true.

            “You complain of false equivalence in your other posts, but continue to falsely equivocate ‘refusing to actively contribute to a wedding’ with ‘telling others how to live;’ a stretch so tenuous as to be comical.

            So, saying I’m not going to serve you because I don’t agree with your life choices is different how?

            “You openly rage against ‘telling others how to live’ while actually telling others how to live.”

            I’m not telling others how to live. Saying you don’t have a right to discriminate is not telling you how to live. If I forced you into a gay marriage, that would be telling you how to live. You’re determining that gays can’t marry is telling them how to live.

            That you can’t see the distinction here is the actual comedy.

            “You claim that my ethics are in disarray, but you are clearly contradicting yourself at every turn.”

            No, I’m clearly proving your inconsistencies at every turn.

            “And that’s not even getting into your open support for slavery, just so long as it’s called something else”

            Calling something that isn’t slavery doesn’t make it slavery. Really equating someone’s “right” to refuse service to someone
            based on religious discrimination with slavery is about as big an afront to logic as ever posted on the Internet.

          • Not sure about the 13th amendment being broken, but clearly the 1st is because it protects freedom of thought, speech, religion and association. Forcing me to sell anything to anyone violates JUST the freedom of association. So yes true.

          • And for the record, we ARE free to decide who to sell things to. The law that says if you sell it to the public it has to be available to ANYONE in the public is WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because the Constitution protects freedom of association, speech religion and thought.

          • backell

            Not attacking. I really think that being “forced” to sell a wedding cake to a gay person is just like slavery, you’re certifiably insane.

            I did not “rant.” That’s what you’re doing. But I’m not going to waste my time with an insane person who equates getting paid for a wedding cake with slaves getting “free room and board.”

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            A gilded cage is still a cage.

          • backell

            And you belong in a padded room. Really. Selling a cake is slavery? Geesh!

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            Ad hominem against the facts. You can’t disprove the statement. You can’t answer the question. So you insult.

          • backell

            I can’t dispute the statement? I did in fact, dispute the statement. You just cowered from the refutation and hid behind more hyperbole.

            The LAW says that if you’re open to the public you can’t use religion to discriminate who you sell to. PERIOD.

            Simply taking one EXTREMELY stretched out similarity where they involve working “against your will” is a fallacy known as FALSE EQUIVALENCE.

            The “facts” aren’t the whole issue here. It’s a FACT that gravity makes the earth rotate. It’s a FACT that Obama is President. It is not a FACT that gravity makes the earth rotate because Obama is President.

            Merely stating that slavery involves forced labor doesn’t mean you made a good argument. It means you’re an unreasonable fool afraid to engage in an honest conversation.

            You’re a fool, a troll or both, and I’ll waste my time with niether. Last comment you get.

            Type less and read more.

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            Fascinating…

          • Karl William Raymond Stack

            So I’m curious, would you consider house slaves “not a slave” because their forced labor wasn’t hard enough? How, and where precisely, are you drawing your arbitrary line of distinction between slavery and forced labor?

          • backell

            “So I’m curious, would you consider house slaves “not a slave” because their forced labor wasn’t hard enough? How, and where precisely, are you drawing your arbitrary line of distinction between slavery and forced labor?”

            Arbitrary distinction? Are you an idiot? HOW ABOUT ACTUALLY NOT HAVING SOMEONE CLAIM LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF YOU!!!! Is that “arbitrary” enough for you?

            Time to stop with these stupid strawmen and have an adult conversation.

          • The law is wrong and unconstitutional.

          • Being forced to go against your conscious is slavery. The slaves throughout history were force to work for people they did not want too.

          • OK, even if we cede to your argument and it is not against freedom of religion. It is against the Constitutionally protected freedom of association and freedom of conscious.

          • elizadoolittle

            The pizza parlor doesn’t cater weddings. This is an example of “gotcha” journalism. They’re losing their business over a service they don’t even offer. No discrimination has actually taken place. When things happen like this, it’s very disturbing.

          • backell

            They’re losing their business? Hyperbole much?

          • elizadoolittle

            I’ll tell you what’s hyperbole: the headline printed by Laura Clawson-”
            Indiana pizza shop won’t serve gays, owner says ‘we’re not discriminating against anyone”

          • elizadoolittle
          • The pizza place said they would never make a pizza for a gay wedding, then had to close because of death threats.

          • They do get a vote, its their business. The law is wrng and goes against Constitutional Rights of freedom of association, religious freedom because of religious conscious.

          • ophelia

            There aren’t enough people in the LGBT community to put a business under, you do realize this right? They are far from the majority of citizens. They are being put out by people like ME who is a married mom who won’t do business with people who are feeding into the ugly in this culture & many of the moms I know.

            I get a vote every time I spend a dollar. I also boycott large companies for violations of human rights, like Nestle. I’m not going to go into a local business that treats people this way. IDC if it’s because they don’t like LGBT, or women, or Muslims or whoever. I would stand behind YOU in an instant if you had a discrimination issue, whatever someone was bullying you with. I go to nurse ins, with no baby, to show support. People like me are putting them under & will continue to do so every chance we get. You shouldn’t get to crap on people’s freedoms to live their OWN lives and make money while doing it.

            As a shopper to a business owner, I don’t care if you go home to 6 wives, or a gay lover or are a celibate monk. YOUR life is yours. Live it however makes you feel fulfilled & happy. Then, just like when you have a fight with a spouse you leave it there & come to work & don’t snap at every person who walks by…leave the rest there too – because you are now in the public. I don’t care what church you go to on Sunday or Synagogue on Saturday or if you go at all. I care if you treat people with respect & dignity & if you don’t…then I don’t shop your services or wares. I don’t need you to crap on me personally to know your crap stinks. 😉

          • You make our argument, let the free market shopper decide, NOT force people to sell things to people they don’t want to no matter how disgusting their actions are to us.

          • Ken

            They’re not being asked to participate in a ritual. They are being asked to make a cake.

          • Making that cake for that ritual does make me participate in it, but let’s say you are right and baking a cake for a gay wedding does not make me participate. What about a photographer? Or Caterer? Or an organist? Or a wedding planner? It most certainly forces them to participate in their ritual.

          • fsu281

            You’re so full of crap. EVERYTHING you just said can be turned right around and said to the opposing view.

            Title II

            Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private”.

            So you’re saying that homosexuality is a religion that cannot be discriminated against? You’re such a freakin hypocrite…as long as everyone sees the world the same way you do there are no issues. Do whatever you want behind closed doors but don’t expect the entre world to kowtow to what some may deem obscene. Remind me where in the CRA it talks about sexual orientation? You (and the rest of your zealots) have insulted those who truly had to fight for what the CRA allowed for.

          • backell

            “So you’re saying that homosexuality is a religion that cannot be discriminated against?”

            I”m saying that if you’re using your religion to make someone pass a religious test, you’re using your religion to discriminate, which is LITERALLY what you’re ddoing.

            “Uou’re such a freakin hypocrite” Actually, I’m not..

            “.as long as everyone sees the world the same way you do there are no issues.”

            I see, so the person saying that it’s ok to refuse to do business with anyone who doesn’t see the world the same as them is the one who’s not doing that.

            ” Do whatever you want behind closed doors but don’t expect the entre world to kowtow to what some may deem obscene.”

            I see, so I must be gay if I disagree with you. My wife would be surprised to know that.

            What you fail to grasp is you aren’t allowed a vote in what I, o anyone ele, do behind closed doors. What you do when you open your doors for BUSINESS is the issue here, and you can’t make what anyone does behind closed doors one.YOU”RE the one making it an issue.

            “eRemind me where in the CRA it talks about sexual orientation? ”

            Remind me where it says its okay to discriminate against sexual orientation based on your religious beliefs? You’re asking them to pass a religious test. That’s religious discrimination.

            “You (and the rest of your zealots) have insulted those who truly had to fight for what the CRA allowed for.”

            Yes, because someone who actually thinks they have a right to determine how other adults live their lives isn’t a zealot.

            And no, that’ not what the CRA is for. I see your history is lacking there. Might want to read up a bit on it pal.

          • Jim Trent

            Blah blah blah. I read what you said as do as I say. Your rights trump my rights.

            I personally don’t care if gays get married. I care that people are being forced to accept it. Just because someone doesn’t accept their sexual choices doesn’t mean they hate them.

          • backell

            Yes, my right to live my own life trumps your right to tell me how to live it.

            That you think you’re being “forced” to accept what you don’t care about proves you do care about. And who said anything about “hating” anyone. I certainly never did. What is with this dishonest way conservatives have arguing? It’s like they have to make up words and arguments you didn’t use or say to “win.”

            Look, it’s really simple. You don’t get a say. Them saying you don’t get a say isn’t them forcing it down your throat or anyone else’s. If you weren’t telling them they couldn’t do it, or refusing to acknowledge that they LEGALLY have the right to disagree with you, then it wouldn’t be an issue.

            It’s hilarious to me that people like you think that by them DARING to live the same way a straight couple would, and do things that a straight couple would, like BUYING A CAKE FOR THEIR WEDDING, they’re “forcing” something on you.

            That’s pathetic. And yes, they’re right to live that way trumps your right to tell them that they can’t a billion times over. And your right to live the way you want trumps their right to tell you what to do.

            But that means you sometimes have to do business with people that you disagree with. That’s the ACTUAL price of freedom.

            This TWISTED view of freedom doesn’t mean freedom to discriminate. It means freedom FROM being discriminated against.

          • Kathy

            I’ve been reading everything you’ve been writing and you’re getting angrier and angrier at everyone who disagrees with you. Why do you suppose that is, backell? And don’t start admonishing me with all those capital letter now, because it just down right rude.

          • backell

            Well, Kathy, it’s not true. You can read any comment angry I suppose. That doesn’t mean it was typed angry. The capital letters. You might want to revisit those comments directed at me, though.

            I haven’t insulted anyone, called anyone names or said anyone was full of crap–all of which has been directed at me. Nor have I tried the empty tactic of saying that people are getting “angry” because people disagree with me.

            Yet everyone who disagrees with me is doing those things. Tell me Kathy, why do you suppose that is?

          • JimBob22

            Actually, you did say people that don’t see it the same way as you are silly…

          • Michael Maynard

            Interesting. “Yes, my right to live my own life trumps your right to tell me how to live it.” But you seem to think you have the right to tell others how they’ll live their lives and what they must accept.

          • backell

            “But you seem to think you have the right to tell others how they’ll live their lives and what they must accept.”

            No. I’m not telling anyone how to live their lives. I’m saying that you can’t use that as an excuse fo discriminatory business practices. And YES, when you operate a business open to the PUBLIC you make yourself a part of the world of commerce, and therefore must abide by the laws of it.

            You don’t HAVE to run a bakery. You can do something else for a living. But running a bakery doesn’t give you a right to discriminate.

          • Michael Maynard

            Of course you’re telling them how to run their lives by telling them they have to ignore the tenants of their belief.

            You don’t HAVE to go to a bakery or any other business who’s practices you don’t agree with. And I’m sure that those who refuse service aren’t being discriminatory but simply following their beliefs. Many businesses discriminate every day without a word being said or any action by the government.

          • backell

            “Of course you’re telling them how to run their lives by telling them they have to ignore the tenants of their belief.”

            No, I’m not. No one is telling them they have to get gay married. I’m telling them they can’t impose those beliefs on other people. That you see it any other way is just silly.

            “You don’t HAVE to go to a bakery or any other business who’s practices you don’t agree with. ”

            No, but you don’t have to agree with them to utilize the business either.

            “Many businesses discriminate every day without a word being said or any action by the government.”

            That doesn’t mean they can’t be.

          • Michael Maynard

            They aren’t trying to tell anyone how to live. They’re simply saying the tenets of their faith don’t allow them to participate in a certain activity. By telling them they have to participate you’re telling them how they have to live. That you see it any other way is silly.

            What’s even sillier is that one would want to force a business to bend to their will.

          • backell

            Yes, those silly gays, expecting to be able to conduct commerce just like every other American citizen. Don’t know they are second class and should be subject to whether or not you agree with them? How SILLY they are.

          • Michael Maynard

            Whether or not I agree with them? I’m sure the irony escapes you. My point is simple. Let the market take care of those who wish to discriminate. Look at the pizza maker who declined to serve gays. I’m sure they’ve lost quite a bit of business. Someone discriminates against me, I simply let my wallet do the talking. I take my business elsewhere and encourage everyone I know to do the same.

          • Hank1947

            The pizza shop received over $800,000 in donations in just 2 days. The market has spoken!

          • Capdragon

            The “market” has NOT spoken.
            Bigots that share the same twisted belief’s as the pizza place owners have spoken.
            There’s a huge difference.

          • Rather they really are bigots or not, that is still the market.

          • Bish Chan

            Should we have let market forces / public opinion take care of refusal of service based on gender, race and religion? If we gutted the public accomodations law in the 60s, segregation would have continued and attitudes would have taken even longer to change. Socially, we would not accept it so lightly if an inter-racial couple got told to go elsewhere. The difference with them and gay couples is simply that society does not think gay people worthy of the same level of protection and dignity.

            The pizza maker was not sued. They closed due to harassment. But they made bank from crowdfunding. The reasonable thing to do if you disliked their stance was to boycott since it was legal in that state to refuse gay people service. To harass and threaten them just made martyrs out of them and gave them a year of profit in a day.

          • Your argument is built on a false premise. The discrimination then was by government, not necessarily the private business owner (although was by private business in some cases like Woolworth’s). Actually Woolworth continued their discrimination until the 1980s, when their choices put them out of business.

            Then when the bad press around the world, from the government discriminating and the protests against them, starting harming US relations and business, the government the decided to create laws stopping businesses from discriminating. That went to far and violated the US Constitutional rights of the businesses to freedom of association.

            Only the government has NO RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE, but private individuals do, no matter how repugnant that choice is to others.

          • IInAwe

            Apparantly, a LOT of people let their wallet do the talking… that pizza maker has received almost $1 million in support donations. I think she can retire now…without ever having to make a wedding pizza, gay or straight.

          • Montanagirl1

            Actually, they have received over $800K of donations to fight the ugly threats. Good for them. Standing up for what you believe in this day and age takes real courage.

          • The pizza place had to go out of business, but not because the market, but because of death threats.

          • Anonymous Me

            I wouldn’t ask a Rabbi or Aman to provide me with a Christian ceremony, yet a Christian Minister was sued for not providing a wedding ceremony for a same sex couple when his religion forbids same sex marriage. What happened to his Right to practice his religion guarenteed in the Constitution? Your Rights end where others Rights begin, simply choose other service providers. This is a deliberate attempt to force Christians to participate in Gay marriage because they have publicly stated they are against it, otherwise we would see other religious groups also targeted, and they are not. Simply tell them you needed a wedding cake, pick out a design, tell them you have your own topper, and put your Adam and Steve figure on yourself. Problem solved, unless you are deliberately trying to sue someone for everything they have worked for their entire life to start your marriage with their money. ..

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            If you are talking about the Knapps in Idaho (which is the ONLY case I could find) THEY are suing for the right not to marry gay couples, they are not being sued… They operate a FOR PROFIT wedding chapel and have internet minister licenses, they do not operate a church… They do not turn away mixed race couples, they do not turn away mixed faith couples, they do not turn away people who are divorced and remarrying… They have no intention of turning away these sinners, just gay’s…

          • First ,your argument is a strawman, either by ignorance of Christianity or knowingly twisting it.

            If you understood what most Christians believe, then you would know that mixed race couples or mixed faith couples are not forbidden for Christians, and that that was only for Hebrews the Old Testament. And as far turning away people who are divorced and remarrying depends on why the divorce took place according to the New Testament.

            Also the bakers can’t know if straight people are mixed faith or divorced remarrying unless they are told or the baker asks. And mixed race would only be known if both individuals in the couple were there or they had photos.

          • slongo

            http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/how_many_lies_is_the_religious_right_willing_to_tell_in_the_idaho_for_profit_wedding_chapel_story

            The Alliance Defending Freedom falsely claimed that same-sex couples have tried to get Donald and Evelyn Knapp, the owners of The Hitching Post, to marry them.
            But there’s zero proof of that, and the City of Coeur d’Alene states no one has filed a complaint. The City of Coeur d’Alene also states the Knapp’s business falls under the religious exemption clause of the non-discrimination ordinance, and wonder why the Knapps never asked.
            Clearly, this manufactured anti-gay attack by the ADF is totally false.

          • This a strawman argument. A baker can refuse to bake any straight a cake for any reason they choose, religious or not.

          • Capdragon

            Try again, oh thou of pure foolishness.
            There is no straw man argument – the pizza [lace was wrong ot what it said. sp they paid for it.
            Bigotry and discrimination no matter how you wish to repaint it should always lose, period.
            Like it or not, believe it or not, the law would have said the same if a Hindu refused service to a christian.
            A business can not refuse service to the general public – in most instances.

          • I agree discrimination should lose by the free market. But no matter how disgusting I find discrimination the Constitution guarantees the freedom of association, so any law hindering that is invalid.

          • And no need to make personal attacks. I have not done so to others here. PS, they went out of business due to death threats.

          • backell

            A baker can’t refuse to bake a straight person for any reason they chose. They can’t refuse to bake one because of race, gender, color or religion.

            They are a business open up to the PUBLIC. They can refuse service to anyone for any reason that applies to anyone, so long as it applies to anyone.

            For instance, I can say no shirt, no shoes, no service. But if it’s only black people that I apply that to, it’s discrimination.

            People keep trying to draw this line between “violating their religion to “force” them to bake a cake. THAT is actually the strawman. The purpose of the cake is moot. They’re not being forced to have gay sex.They’re selling a cake–as they would to ANY member of the public.

            This is discrimination because it singles out a specific group of people based on a religious belief. That’s against the law.

          • Actually there is no federal law, and n law in most states stating that you can not refuse service based on sexual preference. Most states you can. Actually a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a straight person for any reason they chose in most states. You have the right to refuse except in cases of race, gender, color or religion.

            They should be able to refuse to bake a cake because of race, gender, color or religion, because of Constitutionally protected right of freedom of association.

            Being a business open up to the PUBLIC makes no difference Constitutionally. They can refuse service to anyone for any reason period!

            People keep trying to ignore the “violating their religion to “force” them to bake a cake. Although I am not arguing religious violations, I am arguing freedom of association guaranteed by the 1st amendment. Your argument is actually the strawman. Saying: “They’re not being forced to have gay sex.They’re selling a cake–as they would to ANY member of the public.” is the actual strawman, as I said what about the photographer, caterer, musicians, ect? They are forced to participate in the actual wedding they religiously and are against violating their freedom of conscious.

            This is private discrimination and religious freedom, freedom of association, freedom of conscious, freedom of determination; because it singles out a specific group of people based on a religious belief. You are forcing balers, photographers, caterers, musicians, ect to go against their. That’s against the Constitution, and laws that go against the constitution are invalid..

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            Businesses follow LAWS… If they BREAK the LAW they deserve the consequences… A business is not a CHURCH, it does not teach MORALITY and has no right to do so!

          • Michael Maynard

            They aren’t trying to teach anyone. Where do you get that stuff from?

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            Had the business representative/owner been intelligent they would have simply stated they were unavailable rather than going into WHY they were unavailable… They did not, they can turn down business legally, they CANNOT turn down business based on discrimination! Can you not see this difference?

          • The owner of that business has every right to say why they are denying and defend the owners morals. WRONG. The law is bad. The gays should have the right to deny service to their haters as well, for any reason or no reason.

          • The owner of that business has every right to defend the owners morals. WRONG. The law is bad. The gays should have the right to deny service to their haters as well, for any reason or no reason.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            If someone does not like a law they should work to change it LEGALLY and NOT BREAK it!!!

          • Not if the law violates the constitution. I guess Dr King and Rosa Parks should have NOT broken the law but ONLY fought to change it. Gandhi too? Its called civil disobedience to unjust laws.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            You know, it is a bit odd for someone to come into a conversation that has been over for a month or more… Trolling?????

          • I just found the article, and started commenting and refuting what I see as false claims, then about half way through saw that the conversations were a month old.

          • roo

            Really. So then I’m going to sue Rue21 because they only market to skinny people and I’m going to demand that they start selling sizes for all, because like any American I should be able to shop their and not feel discriminated for my weight. Cuz that all mashes perfect sense. If your gay, why go to a Christian bakery. It’s like you just waiting to be told sorry we don’t want your business, just do you can make them feel how you feel, like less of a person. If you feel that way it’s your fault. You feel how you allow yourself to feel. Grow up and just go to a gay bakery.

          • Just Sayin

            I’m going to sue Victoria Secret for not selling anything for straight men to wear I’ve asked them if they sell anything and they told me to go somewhere else.

          • backell

            “Really. So then I’m going to sue Rue21 because they only market to skinny people and I’m going to demand that they start selling sizes for all, because like any American I should be able to shop their and not feel discriminated for my weight.”

            Complete false equivalence. The biggest problem with your scenario si that the bakery is already selling cakes. This isn’t about who they market it to, it’s about who they SELL to.

            “If your gay, why go to a Christian bakery.”

            There is no such thing as a Christian bakery. There are Christians who are bakers. By LAW you can’t discriminate who you conduct business with based on religion.

            “It’s like you just waiting to be told sorry we don’t want your business, just do you can make them feel how you feel, like less of a person. ”

            I’m getting the sense that because I don’t take an anti-gay stance you’re assuming that I am gay and not Christian. You’re wrong on both counts. I am a straight, married, Christian man. I just don’t think that means that people who don’t agree with me aren’t allowed to participate in commerce.

            And it seems to me that you want them to feel like less of a person.

          • Anonymous Me

            No. It seems to me the LBGT communities got the Right to get married and now wants to force it down Christians throats, when their religious beliefs say not to practice or be involved in Gay marriage. It is a violation of their right to practice their religion as they chose. It is not am attempt to make them feel like less of a person, it is them attempting to force others to live the way they chose to and force others to participate against their will. I could care less if they they get married, in fact I supported it, but now they are circumventing other people’s Rights and that is wrong. I don’t fight against abortion

          • Trevor K. Ten Brink

            NO ONE’S religious beliefs dictate that they should discriminate in a place of commerce. That’s not in the Bible at all. Gay people like me getting married has nothing to do with anyone else’s religious beliefs. It has everything to do with love. I didn’t get married to shove it in the faces of Christians. I got married because I am in love with the person I married, same as any straight couple.

          • I am sure most all gays marry for love just like straights do, but those forcing Christians to be part of or connected to that gay marriage when they believe gay relationships and gay marriage is wrong does have to do with their religious beliefs and their right to freedom of association both declared by the US Constitution.

            Besides why would you want those who oppose your wedding and love be part of your wedding?

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            Their religious beliefs also say don’t be involved in divorce/remarriage, don’t be involved in mixed religion marriages, don’t be involved in mixed race marriages, don’t be involved… Do you really want me to continue this??? The main point is that a BAKERY or FLOWER SHOP etc… IS NOT A CHURCH!!! They are an open door, for profit BUSINESS and thus MUST follow CIVIL LAW!

            Oh yes, if the IDIOTIC business owners had simply stated they wer “unavailable for the event” they would have been fine…

          • Now, your argument is a strawman, either by ignorance of Christianity or knowingly twisting it.

            If you understood what most Christians believe, then you would know that mixed race couples or mixed faith couples are not forbidden for Christians, and that that was only for Hebrews the Old Testament. And as far turning away people who are divorced and remarrying depends on why the divorce took place according to the New Testament.

            Also the bakers can’t know if straight people are mixed faith or divorced remarrying unless they are told or the baker asks. And mixed race would only be known if both individuals in the couple were there or they had photos.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            2 Corinthians 6:14-15: “Be ye not unequally yoked together
            with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what
            communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part
            hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (KJV)

            This is just ONE of many verses… As for divorce, there is ONE SINGLE allowable reason for divorce in the New Testament and that is adultery!!!

          • Uhm, what does that verse have to do with mixed race marriages? As far as mixed faith marriage God says you should not, but in other verses he also says IF you are married to an unbeliever then stay with them as a long as they will stay with you. 1 Corinthians 7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. So it is strongly advised against but not forbidden. We must take the full counsel of God.

            As for divorce, adultery is Not the ONE SINGLE allowable reason for divorce in the New Testament. When Jesus was asked about divorce, he said God allowed it because their hearts were hard, in other words those wanting the divorce were jerks. And then he said you may divorce only for marital unfaithfulness, not adultery. All adultery is marital unfaithfulness, but not all marital unfaithfulness is adultery, at least not physical adultery. That could mean physical abuse, absent emotionally, not fulfilling the marital duties, long periods of withholding sex, and can include sexual adultery. , In other words their hearts were hard. Also, the penalty for adultery was stoning not divorce.

          • But like I said, the baker would not know if they were divorced or mixed faith unless the couple told them, BUT they would know it was a gay wedding cake,

          • K. LittleDeer

            The bible says many things but doesn’t define marriage the way you think it does. Marriage can be ,for instance, between a man, the woman (which was almost always an arranged marriage for more land, title, money, etc) and the woman’s property slave. It could be between a man, his wife and his concubines or a soldier for God and one or more captives he had,all approved by God. It could be between a rape victim and her rapist in which the rapist has to pay the rape victims father 50 shekels (woman were PROPERTY, like cattle) and the man could NOT divorce the woman(he could find ways to have her stoned to death down the line) The bible speaks of the Yibbum, or Levirate marriage takes place when the eldest brother of a man who died without children marries the widow. He gets the entire estate instead of the family splitting it and if children come from the union, they are considered his brother children. The bible even condones some incestuous unions and in other places denounces them. LOL

            First of all, Christians do not hold the patent on marriage. The marriageS, all different types, that the bible speaks about were ALL about the female being property and were arranged. In Jesus’s time, a female child was ready for marriage at age 3 years old and ONE day. Even the first American’s are NOT Christians that most would even understand or agree with. They held 2 main sacraments: the Lords Supper and Baptism. They did not wear crosses or use them in the churches and the churches were plain and not of grand architecture. They also did NOT get married in the church because it was not a sacrament. It was all done by Justice of the Peace. In Christianity, it was not a sacrament until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.

            As for the LGBTQ trying to “force people” to accept them as equals, that is what you are nit saying because you know you’re a bigot and homophobe. You are delusional and are afraid to face your own bigotry for what it is. I hate to tell folks to leave their own country as I am a descendant of a Dec of Indpend. signer and ,on my mom’s side, related to the commander of the Alamo, William Barrett Travis and believe in all of us having the same rights that they fought for…even uneducated, provincial, jejune bigots such as yourself. BUT, what you want to a theocracy or Theoretic Republic, which is chaos. I lived in the Jumeirah neighborhood of Dubai, United Arab Emirates to mention one area in the Middle east and that is NOT what America is about. We have secular laws to keep our zealot Christians in check and they do not run amok as religioius zealots do in Theocracies. You have your victimization backwards, son. YOU are the bullies and this nation is not going to allow you to abuse your religioius doctrine, one very few of your even have read or understand, and abuse the terms pray, worship and the like to hide your bigoted and hate mongering agenda. Sorry, but if you don’t like it, you can always take a run or the border, son.

          • All the types of marriage in the bible, was not supposed to be that way in the Old Testament under the Old Covenant. Jesus said so. The New Testament clearly states that it is between one man and one woman for Christians. Beside you are changing the argument to should gay marriage be legal or not, when this is about freedom of association not to participate in something you believe your religion opposes.

          • Anonymous Me

            I’m not a son, I’m not bigoted and I believe in equal rights for all, not just minorities. For a group of people who faced exteeme discrimination themselves for a long time, the LBGT community is sure discriminating against Christians now. They are even happy to see families go out of business and be bankrupted because of their personal beliefs, even if that business never refused service to anyone, and it’s all right to destroy a family who never did anything to anyone, because you disagree with their opinions? Look at Miracle Pizza, their business was destroyed and they never refused service to anyone. They have a Constitutional right to their opinions, we all do! Gay and straight alike.

          • Mark O’Hara

            Every sentence you’ve made has proven you are not for equal rights for all because you say that one person should have one right that impedes on another’s. You are a bigot.

          • Anonymous Me

            You are so wrong, I think same sex marriage is fine, same sex couples adopting is fine, any career they want fine, I just don’t think they should destroy people’s businesses when they can simply hire some one else to bake their cake.. Why do they feel the need to destroy other people’s families for having a different opinion than theirs?

          • Mark O’Hara

            Whose forcing anything?

          • Anonymous Me

            Rue 21 is already selling clothes. ..

          • So would it be different if they said they don’t market to gay weddings? You are playing word games here.

          • IInAwe

            How do you tell if a bakery is Christian? Do they have a big sugar cross in the window? Does a gay bakery have a big frosting rainbow? What happens if the bakery has both gay bakers and born-again Christian bakers? Worse yet…what if a gay or lesbian customer wants to buy an Easter lamb cake? Sacrilege! I was also wondering what toppings they put on a “gay” wedding pizza…

          • All your questions and statements are Red Herrings, trying to make light of the arguments and distract from the real arguments. The worker can not deny service based on their personal religious beliefs, ONLY the owner can, so if they have straight and gay bakers, then it is up to the owner, and if the employees don’t like the owners choice to serve or not serve gays then they can quit.

          • But you are telling them that they have to make a cake for an activity that goes against their religious beliefs. No one gay or straight should be able to force their beliefs on another.

            In the case of the no gay wedding cake baker, the gay couple is forcing them to go against their beliefs if they make government force them. If the no gay wedding cake baker denies baking the gay couples cake, he has NOT forced his views on them,because they can go somewhere else and get their cake baked.

          • backell

            But you’re missing the point. My “activity” that I’m using the cake for isn’t up to you. You’re not “participating” in that. You’re selling me a cake.

            The only thing you are doing is what you do for a living. If I have to abide by your religious beliefs for you to sell me that cake, then you are violating my freedom.

            They shouldn’t be forced to go somewhere else. That”s the whole nature of anti-discrimination laws.

          • But you’re missing the point. Your “activity” that you are using the cake for is up to me once you make it my business. I am “participating” in that by selling you a cake. Lets say I say you are right on the baker (which I don’t think you are), then what about the photographer, caterer, organist, ect., they have to be part of the service, then you are forcing them to be part 100%.

            The thing I do for a living becomes part of what I do not want to be a part of. You do NOT have to abide by my religious beliefs, you can go somewhere else. I am NOT violating your freedom, you can get a cake form one who wants to serve you. You are violating my freedom of association. Why would you want one opposed to your life and special day being part of it?

            I shouldn’t be forced to serve you IF my conscious is bothered by selling to you. That”s the whole nature of the Constitutionally protected rights of freedom of association..

          • backell

            I’m not missing the point at all. The activity that I use the cake for is none of your “business.” Selling the cake is your business. You’re not participating in the wedding. You’re selling me a cake.

            You’re insistence that I use that cake in a way that doesn’t conflict with your religious beliefs is religious discrimination. If I go by kosher beef, thee butcher can’t tell me that he won’t sell it to me if I’m using it to make bacon cheeseburgers.

            The thing you do for a living is all you are being asked to do. Whether I “can” go somewhere else is moot. The people that were pro-segregation offered the same “logic.” Go to your “black” bakery is the same as “go somewhere else. Saying you can go somewhere else doesn’t mean you aren’t discriminating, it means you are.

            There is no “constitutionally protected right” to discriminate based on religion. Period.. You can insist that all you want, but your’e still wrong.

            You can’t force your customers pass a religious test to do business with them. It’s as simple as that.

          • It is my business if I am told what it is for and asked to make it for that reason. Selling the cake is your business but I ave the Constitutional right to not bake you a cake for any reason aka freedom of association and freedom of conscious.. If you tell me what it is for I add something to the wedding, so I am participating in the wedding.

            I have not argued the religious point, though I agree with it. I have argued freedom of association, freedom of determination and freedom of conscious. I am not insisting that you use that cake in a way that doesn’t conflict with my religious beliefs (if I use a religious reason not to do it). I am saying I will not be part of what you want to use it for. is religious discrimination. Yes, Kosher butcher has the Constitutional right to refuse to sell you kosher beef, if he knows you are using it to make bacon cheeseburgers.

            The thing you do for a living is NOT all I am being asked to do. I am being asked to make a cake for a reason that violates my conscious, forcing me to bake it, when I know the use that I disagree with violates my freedom of association, freedom of conscious and freedom of self determination. Whether you “can” go somewhere else is NOT moot. The people that were pro-segregation offered the same “logic.” I never said that saying go somewhere else (for any reason) is NOT discrimination. It is, but it is their right, and its protected in the Constitution with freedom of association, self determination, and freedom of conscious (which includes freedom of religion IF it violates their religious conscious).

            There is a “constitutionally protected right” to freedom of association, self determination, and freedom of conscious. Period. These freedoms allow one to privately discriminate. Open to public does not make your sales public. You can insist it is not true all you want, but your’e still wrong.

            You can’t force a business to go against his freedom of association, self determination, and freedom of conscious (which includes freedom of religion IF it violates their religious conscious) to do business with them against their will. It’s as simple as that.

          • backell

            1. Your “conscience” about what the cake is used for doesn’t get a vote. There is a “constitutionally protected right” to freedom of association, self determination, and freedom of conscious. PeriodThen you’re violating MY freedom. That’s the point. This is not a debate. it’s been law for 50 years.

            2. The thing you do for a living IS all you’re being asked to do.

            3. “There is a “constitutionally protected right” to freedom of association, self determination, and freedom of conscious. Period”

            This is a lot of empty words and sophistry. None of that is being violated. No one is asking you to have gay sex. They are asking you to sell a cake to people who do.

            If it bothers you that much, you can chose to not sell wedding cakes at all. But you can’t BY LAW’S UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT which have been in place for over 50 years discriminate what customers you do business with based on your religion or there’s.

          • 1. Your “conscience” about what the cake is used for does get a vote IF I have to make it.. There is a “constitutionally protected right” to freedom of association, self determination, and freedom of conscious. Period. Your freedom ends where mine is infringed. You know nothing about rights, you asking me to make you a product and me denying to do so does not infringe on your rights. You are the one asking me to do something for you. To force me infringes on these things, not me denying you my labor. This is not a debate. The law has been in violation of rights and the Constitution for 50 years. Even though the law ONLY covers certain classes, gay is not one of them.

            2. Yes thing I do for a living IS what I am being asked to do, but I have the right to not use my labor to do it..

            3. “There is a “constitutionally protected right” to freedom of association, self determination, and freedom of conscious. Period”

            If you know definitions then these are being violated. Gay sex is a strawman. If you force me to do something then you are violating my self determination because I determine not to do it. You violate my freedom of association because you force me to associate with someone by providing them service, especially if a photographer, musician, caterer and more, because they have to be part of the wedding.

            If it bothers you that much, you can chose to not buy wedding cakes at all. I don’t have to not make wedding cakes IF I refuse t sell them to anyone. But I can especially with gays because that law does not cover gays.

            THE SUPREME COURT is wrong. All agree that they can be wrong on issues. Sometimes they reverse earlier findings.

          • backell

            1. No it doesn’t. Simply asserting repeatedly that it does doesn’t make it so. You always have the option of not making wedding cakes at all. You’re not being “forced” to make a wedding for gay people. You’re being denied the “right” to discriminate against them because no such “right” exists.

            2. You have the right to do it or not do it, as long as is without discrimination. You don’t have a constitutional right to that.

            3. You’re not being forced to do something. You can decide to not sell wedding cakes at all. The strawman here is that you re being forced to so something. You don’t have to make wedding cakes at all. But if you sell them, you have to sell them to anyone who wants to buy them without discrimination of religion, just like any other product or any other type of discrimination.

            4. “If it bothers you that much, you can chose to not buy wedding cakes at all.” Another strawman. A gay wanting to buy a cake for a gay wedding is not against the law. A bakery refusing to sell him one is.

            5. Conditionally speaking, that’s impossible, as the SC is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Yes, they can reverse previous decisions, but until/unless they do, their last decision stands.

            As of now, you can’t discriminate against people based on religion. That’s the law. Period. Your whole argument is invalid.

          • My point is almost every argument you make towards me can make back at you.:

            1. No it doesn’t. Simply asserting repeatedly that it does doesn’t make it so. You always have the option of not buying wedding cakes at all. I am being “forced” to make a wedding for gay people, IF they make me. You’re being denied the “right” to force me because no such “right” exists to force me. Where there is a right to not be forced to do something against your will. Say no all you want the right is still there.

            2. You have the right to do it or not do it, even with discrimination. Now under the law I don’t. But under the Constitution I do. And gays are not protected under the law. I DO don’t have a constitutional right to that, just not allowed ti=o under unconstitutional laws.

            3. I am not being forced to do something. Bake a Cake, or take photos or cater the event or play music at the event. I notice how you don’t address these.You can decide to not sell wedding cakes to who I don’t want to sell them to maybe not under unconstitutional laws, but as far as my natural rights protected by the US Constitution.. The strawman here is that I’m NOT being forced to so something. I know I don’t have to make wedding cakes at all, but I can and decide not to sell them to gays under current unconstitutional law, but not some categories under the same law.. But if you sell them, I do not have to sell them to anyone, just have to sell them to the protected classes. Show me the law that says one can’t deny gays. You can’t, unless its a certain sate law. I do NOT have to sell them to anyone who wants to buy them without discrimination by the Constitution, and the unconstitutional law makes us sell them to some groups, but NOT gays.

            4. “If it bothers you that much, you can chose to not buy wedding cakes at all.” Another strawman? Its the argument you used on me? Not strawman at all. A gay wanting to buy a cake for a gay wedding is not against the law. A bakery refusing to sell him one is not against the law either..

            5. Conditionally speaking, that’s impossible, as the SC is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Yes, they can reverse previous decisions, but until/unless they do, their last decision stands. I agree,though their decisions are unconstitutional, when you compare the law with the Constitution. And I will DISOBEY that law IF I choose. Though I am not racist, anti women or anti other religions, so I personally would never deny them service. I would not deny gays service except IF they specified it was to have anything to do with their actual union. And that is not illegal nationally or in my state.

            As of now, I can discriminate against people based on my religious beliefs and against gay folks, though I again I would only discriminate against them involving their union.. That’s the law. Period. Your whole argument is invalid.

          • backell

            1. No you’re not. Again, you can get out of the wedding cake business entirely. You don’t have a right to discriminate. There is no such thing.

            2. Not legally. And the law has been upheld as constitutional. We’re talking about what “is” not what you think “should be.”

            3. There’s no such thing as a “natural law” to discriminate.

            4. A bakery refusing to sell him one IS against the law. It’s a violation fo the Civil Rights act.

            5. No you can’t.

            Look,, you can sit there and INSIST that gravity is fiction all you want. But discrimination IS against the law and you’re argument is all resting on this notion that you have a right to do so. You don’t.

            So go ahead, type another long-winded wrong-headed comment. You’ll still be wrong.

          • 1. I don’t have time to keep going back and forth and tit for tat, when we disagree on almost every premise.

            2. Yes I am. Again, I do NOT have to get out of the wedding cake business entirely. I do have a natural and Constitutional right to discriminate, because I have the right (natural right) to free association, self determination and freedom of conscious, rather the lower laws and the SCOTUS agree or not.

            3. Yes legally against gays, but not against religious, race or sex by the lower law (which violates the constitutional rights I have mentioned). Yes the law has been upheld as constitutional, but for sex, race and religion NOT gays. We’re talking about what “is” according to the Constitution, not what you, the lower laws or the court thinks “should be.” Yes, IF the Court says it is Constitutional then legally it is, but NOT necessarily the way the Constitution says. And again NO SCOTUS said gay was covered.

            4. There’s is so such a thing as a “natural law” to discriminate. It is called freedom of ASSOCIATION, which means you can choose who and who not you want to ASSOCIATE with, this includes commerce.

            5. A bakery refusing to sell a gay IS NOT against the law federally, or in most states, only some states. Prove me wrong. You, like me are just making claims with no proof. I n Virginia you can refuse to sell to anyone unless they are covered in the Civil Rights act. Gays are not included in the Civil Rights Act.

            6. YES I can to anyone but those covered in the Civil Rights Act, especially in VA, That does not include gays.

            Look,,Discrimination IS NOT against the law to ALL groups, just some. Gays are not one of the protected classes in VA or under the Civil Rights Bill. You’re argument is all resting on this notion that I have no right to do so. I do under natural law of freedom of association. And against gays IF I want to under VA law and the Civil Rights Law. As I said I would not unless it involved their union. Show me where gays are protected by Virginia Law or the Civil Rights law at all. Show me or shut up.

            So go ahead, type another long-winded wrong-headed comment. You’ll still be wrong.

          • backell

            No you don’t.

          • I say I do and you say I don’t. We have both said our peace at length, and have basically said it all from our point of view, so no need to continue to waste each other’s time. I don’t have time, and I would guess you don’t have the time, to both keep posting basically the same thing over and over. Neither of us will change our mind, so I say we agree to disagree.

          • From the American Bar Association (not some fringe site): Currently, there is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws hiring or employment discrimination on the basis of the employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but does not mention sexual orientation, much less gender identity. Source: https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/summer2004/irr_hr_summer04_protectlgbt.html

          • backell

            This is very much up in the air. But this isn’t about not gay or gay. It’s about religion. Using your religion as the pretext to NOT service them is illegal.

          • Its not up in the air, sexual orientation is not protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Some states and some localities do have laws protecting sexual orientation from refusal of service. Yes it is about religion, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents a business open to the public from discrimination against another for their religion, but does NOT prevent a person from refusing service based on religious objections to the request. So not illegal across the board, only is some areas.

          • backell

            If the argument were “I disagree with gays, therefore I’m not serving you” there wouldn’t be an issue. But when you say, I disagree with this because of my religion, you make it a religious issue. Religious discrimination IS covered under the CRA.

          • You have yet to prove that. Because I am not discriminating against their religion. I am discriminating based on my conscious which stems from my religious beliefs. Show me the statute in the CRA where it covers my conscious objection based on religious beliefs and not just discriminating against them for their religion. You have made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Provide the actual statues, not a webpage or opinion piece where we must find it, but the actual statute and where it says this explicitly..

          • backell

            You’re discriminating against them based on them not sharing YOUR religious beliefs. How is that not religious discrimination? It’s a distinction without a difference.

          • There is a distinction in the difference, because the laws stop me from discriminating against their religion. I am NOT discriminating against them because of their religion. I am using religious morals as my freedom of religion, freedom of conscious, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of self determination ALL protected by the 1st amendment of the US Constitution,

          • backell

            No, that’ snot a difference. You’re using religion as a pretext to discriminate. And no, you are NOT being “forced” to do something against your religion.

            You ara being asked to SELL something to someone who is doing something that is against your religion. Yet you seem to ONLY want to isolate on one specific thing.

            This has nothing to do with conscience, self-determination or any of that other blather. It has to do with YOU trying to impose your will on other people. Let’s not pretend it’s not.

          • Yes that is a difference. I am using my freedom of conscious from my religious convictions to not do something I deem as immoral. And yes I am being “forced” to do something against your religion. Because my religion says not to participate in immoral acts or another’s sin. My God tells me homosexual relationships are sin. So rather I bake a cake in a store or have to go in person and be part of the wedding by being a DJ, PERFORMING MUSIC, CATERING PHOTOGRAPHING OR PLANNING I am being part of another’s sin by providing something they use to celebrate it.

            I am not ONLY wanting to isolate on one specific thing. I would NOT sell anything to anyone who told me they were using my product or wanted me there to service their event for anything celebrating sin.

          • This does have to do with conscience, self-determination or freedom of association or what you call blather which are rights protected by the US Constitution.

            SO If I am forced to serve you, then I am forced to associate with you SO my Constitutionally protected right of freedom of association is violated. If I am forced to serve you, then I can not determine for myself, SO there goes Constitutionally protected right of freedom of self determination.

            IF my religion says I can NOT participate in a known sin or celebrate its activity, THEN my Constitutionally protected right of freedom of religion is violated. If I can NOT say no, then there goes my Constitutionally protected right off freedom of speech. IF I can NOT follow my conscious, then there goes my Constitutionally protected right of freedom of conscious.

            It has NOTHING to do with me trying to impose your will on other people. To NOT sell is not forcing anything. It is them trying to impose their will on me.Let’s not pretend it’s not. IF you don’t see that then you are blind or dishonest.

          • backell

            You talk much but say little.
            1. Your “conscience” HAS NO PLACE in telling other people how to live their lives.

            2. You “conscience” is not really the thing that’s bothered. Otherwise othter sins would bother you too.

            Stop with the excuses. This is right-wing fascism at it’s finiest. Your’e trying to dictate to other people how to live their lives.

            Yes, You wanna open a business to the public. You have to be open to the public, not just those who agree with your religious POV

            Everything else is just parsing, including made-up things like “freedom of conscience” which has nothing to do with the Constitution. You’re making all these arguments about your religion and the Constitution.

            Yet NOT A THING you say is found in the Constitution or the Bible. So, fine. You’re goinng to remain a closed-minded and ignorant bigot , full of his own bloated sense of entitlement.

            If you want to make it an argument about your religion. Tell me, hwich verse in the bible prohibits doing business with gays.

            If you want to make it an argument about the Constitution. You’re wrong. You do NOT have a right to impose your religion on other people and gussy it up with mumbo jumbo aobut your conscience.

          • I talk a lot because there is a lot to be said that you don’t want to hear.

            1. MY “conscience” HAS EVERY PLACE, because its my right to follow it, and not anyone’s to violate, and using my conscious to say no to someone for a service IS NOT telling other people how to live their lives. They can live their life anyway they want, just NOT with my help.

            2. My “conscience” is really the thing that’s bothered. And I said, IF you read that I would feel the same for anyone telling me they would use my product to ‘celebrate’ their sin, any sin.

            No excuses. This is NT right-wing fascism at it’s finest. Fascism is actually left wing IF farthest left is all powerful government and farthest right is no government. I am NOT trying to dictate to other people how to live their lives. I am just telling them they can live any way they want,as long as they don’t force me to be involved in it. Actually left winger big government folks do that. You don’t see your contradiction? The lefties are telling me how to live my life, and bake cakes for people I wish not to bake cakes for.

            No, if I wanna open a business in the community (public is the wrong word, because the public sphere is government), not private business open in the community. I am open in the community, but should be able to select which parts of the community I am open for. (as I actually said I would serve anyone, just not if I know its for a celebration of sin). Nobody has to agree with my religious views. They just know I won’t sell them a product to be used to further or celebrate sin. They can go else where and buy it.

            “Freedom of conscience” is not made up, it is protected in the 1st amendment and is protected by the Constitution. Here is a quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929):

            “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. I think that we should adhere to that principle with regard to admission into, as well as to life within this country”.

            EVERYTHING I say is found in the Constitution and the Bible. The constitution’s 1st amendment does cover everything I mentioned. Try reading it.

            I am not a closed-minded and ignorant bigot. I am following the Bible and the US Constitution. Everything I said is in the bible, what the verse? Ephesians 5:7 – Therefore don’t be partakers with them.

            It is an argument about the Constitution. I’m right. I am NOT imposing my religion on anyone. I am just saying I can not provide a service for them because it goes against my beliefs They can still believe what they want and go buy it elsewhere. It is no mumbo jumbo about my conscience. We all ahve one and no one should make us violate it.That is fascism.

          • You are still avoiding my question about the DJ, the caterer, the musician, the photographer, the wedding planner who is forced to provide their service in person. They are being forced to be a part of the wedding for sure, because they must be there. For the sake of argument I give you baker and florist is not part of the wedding, because they are not made to go to the wedding. But the others are, what about them? (I have brought this up at least 8 times and you still haven’t addressees it).

          • You still have never answered me about the musician, wedding planner, DJ, photographer or caterer who IS 100% being FORCED to PARTICIPATE, or has to go out of their way to pay others to take their place and causes them a financial hardship to do so..

          • Also, what about the photographer, caterer, musician? They are definitely forced to be part of it IF they are forced to provide these things at the wedding.

          • Maybe we should agree to disagree and stop what is becoming a circle jerk, since neither of us agree on what is Constitutional, what rights are being violated/not being violated, right, wrong and what is allowed and not allowed.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            Did you know that there is a religion here in the states that believes that black people are sinners in former lives and come back black as a punishment, they will go out of their way to avoid black people… BUT GUESS WHAT….. IF they operate a business that is open to the public they CANNOT discriminate against blacks!!! They must still afford them the same services they offer to the rest of their customers…

            Now, had these business owners been even minimally intelligent they would simply have said “Sorry, I am not available” they would have been fine but rather than do that they determined that telling the couples that they would not serve them because they were gay was the right thing to do….. DUMB! and they deserve whatever consequences they received…

          • Michael Maynard

            Okay. Have it your way. But watch for unintended consequences. Watch for the Westboro Baptist Church bunch to tell a gay owned printing business to make their “God hates fags” signs. Or maybe the KKK will have a black owned BBQ joint cater their next meeting. According to you neither business can refuse those hideous customers. You can’t have it both ways

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            You are a very confused person… There is a difference between serving customers equally and being asked/made to write hateful things… IF you make wedding cakes you cannot discriminate on WHO you make the cake for, if your photograph weddings you cannot discriminate on WHO you photograph for, if you make wedding flower arrangements you cannot discriminate on who you make the wedding flower arrangements for… If you do not write hate messages on cakes or signs or whatever else for ANYONE then no one can force you to do so for them….. If you cannot see that difference I feel sorry for you…

          • Michael Maynard

            I’m not confused at all. It appears you want a double standard. Businesses must serve those with whom you agree but can openly discriminate against those with whom you don’t agree.

          • There is no difference between being forced to make products you are morally opposed to. And in the example, the Klan didn’t want hate, they wanted a black barbecue to cater their function, And I can see the Klan doing this to irritate the black owners, and then dumping the food in the trash.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            You called my points a strawman argument… OMG! you are definitely the pot calling the kettle black…

          • Yours were strawman, and I explained why. How are mine strawman? Just say it with no explanation as to how?

          • Maybe your argument was actually more of a red herring.

          • But they should be able to deny blacks service as part of their constitutional protected freedom of the right to associate, even though I think it is stupid, ignorant and bad business. And blacks should be able to deny whites. And these owners deserve the right to free speech and freedom of association and not legal consequences.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            Really??? Interesting and sad!

          • No not sad, I am against all discrimination, but under the Constitutionally protected freedom of association anyone can deny anyone anything they wish. The only exception to this is government.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            Oh, Okay… So states are not allowed to make laws… Oooooookay then…..

          • States can make laws,a s long as they do not violate constitutional rights, ever heard of the 14th amendment?

          • Mark O’Hara

            Then they shouldn’t operate a business where the law requires they serve all customers.

          • Giantslayer

            No one is telling you how to live your life simply by not baking a cake. They are simply saying I believe marriage is between a man a and a woman and I am not going to abandon my believes just because you feel I HAVE to bake you a cake. And just because there is a law stating I have to doesn’t make the law just if it violates my constitutional right to my own religious belief. Should we make a law to violate the rights of gays??? Simply because I don’t want to bake you a cake? Based on your thinking it would be justified.

          • backell

            “They are simply saying I believe marriage is between a man a and a woman and I am not going to abandon my believes just because you feel I HAVE to bake you a cake.”

            There is no conflict between baking a cake and your religious beliefs. You’re just acknowledging that someone believes differently. If you bae the cake are you magically unable to still have the same opinion?

            No. What you want to do is TELL THEM that you don’t approve. And what right do you have to that?

          • Backell_Sucks_A$$

            Every single post you make is tl;dr material. You write a whole lot of words without saying much of anything. What a waste of time. I feel for every moron that has had to read this blowhard’s comments.

          • avengeflipper

            No one should able to compel you to bake them a cake. It is their business. The public does not own the bakery. If the public disagrees with the way they do business, they should not shop there.

          • backell

            LOL!!! So if people don’t want to be discriminated against they shouldn’t shop where they’re being discriminated against? Did you think about this before you typed it?

            And for the record, this word “foced” is being overplayed. You shoudl be REQUIRED to provide the same service to all members of the public, whether you agree with their religious views or not.

            If you don’t want to supply that service to SOME members of the public, don’t provide it to ANY of them. Problem solved.

          • avengeflipper

            Yes, and it’s a life I’ve lived. In places where I faced discrimination, I chose not to return. I don’t want the people waiting on me and serving me to be compelled to do so. I’d rather give my business to those who’d do it either way.

          • Mark O’Hara

            It has nothing to do with the public. The law states you can not refuse service when operating a business that provides a service based on color, sex, or religion.

          • Michele Elaine Owen Witley

            Well said. I would think any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone without having to give a reason. I have no problem with people having the right to choose how they live. What I do have a problem with is that these groups have the right to ruin peoples lives/livelihood just to make a point and to start screaming intolerance. And yet they themselves are intolerant of people standing up for their beliefs. It is pure persecution. This couple should be able to sue this “couple” for ruining their livelihood. And I wonder why these Muslims refusing to bake a wedding cake doesn’t lead to them being persecuted?

          • Mark O’Hara

            You seem to be under the impression that a business is like a person. It is not and can not function as such.

          • Mark O’Hara

            Which they as a business do not have a right to say.

          • Kevin Higginbotham

            Your right to live your own life trumps my right to tell you how to live it? I couldn’t agree more. The same applies to you. So why are you trying to tell me how I can and cannot worship my God?

          • backell

            “So why are you trying to tell me how I can and cannot worship my God?”

            I’m not. I’m telling you that you can’t use your worship of God as an excuses to discriminate in business.

          • But you are, and under the Constitution they can discriminate, because they have freedom of religion, conscious and association. The laws are in opposition to those freedoms, so unconstitutional.

          • backell

            “So why are you trying to tell me how I can and cannot worship my God?”

            I’m not. Selling a gay couple a wedding cake isn’t worshiping God.

          • Kevin Higginbotham

            Maybe not to you, but maybe I would feel like I would hinder my worship of God by selling them the cake. “Selling a gay couple a wedding cake isn’t worshiping God.” Another example of you telling me what is and isn’t part of my religion. It’s my religion, not yours. Since when do you get to tell me what my religion is or isnt?

          • JimBob22

            The point you are missing is that in all theses scenarios it is not discrimination because the person is gay. They would happily make a cake for a gay couple for events that don’t contradict their religious beliefs (i.e. birthday cake). The problem is that this specific cake glorifies an act that is contradictory to their religious beliefs. You cannot force me to be a part of something that is against my religion, that is my right to religious freedom. What I can’t do is refuse services unrelated to my religious beliefs based on sexual orientation (again i.e. birthdays in the bakery scenario).

            Colossians 3:17 “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”

          • Wrong, the Bible says my whole life is worship, and to do all I do to him. I can NOT bake a gay wedding cake to him.

          • IInAwe

            If you sell food, you sell food.That’s it. You sell to anyone that orders and pays. In the meantime, you can worship your God in WalMart or on the crapper and no one can tell you any differently.

          • I can worship in my business as well, which might include not making food for people I believe are doing things my religion says are wrong.

          • Anonymous Me

            So you have the Right to live your life the way you choose, but Christians don’t…simply choose another service provider and stop deliberately targeting Christians.

          • backell

            Christians do have a right to live the life they way choose. This is stupid on so many levels.

            1. Who says they’re “targeting” Christians. What if you live in a small town with only one bakery? Have you thought about these things?

            2. Living your life the way you choose and not discriminating are two different things.

            3. You’re inherently arguing for a right to discriminate. That’s not a right.

          • IInAwe

            Here’s my take on this. It’s a damn CAKE or a stinking PIZZA. That IS what the’re selling isn’t it? Then sell it. It’s a food item. You’re not going to burn in hell because you fed a “sinner”. You’re not embracing the gay lifestyle by making them a cake for their wedding. Do they also refuse to make divorce party cakes or baby shower cakes for unwed mothers? Do they hand out a questionnaire when they take an order to make sure their food will only be used in a Christian-minded way? Because after all, gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins… This whole religious argument is just ridiculous.

          • avengeflipper

            Yeah, the argument should be about freedom to do what one chooses.

          • Bunny Bboostrom

            so as the video shows it wasnt christians denying the service yet I don’t see the trolls saying anything about muslims denying the service, re watch that video and stop focusing on the christians because apparently a gay couple can just forget about getting a cake in the bakeries in dearborn (unless the grocery store they told them to go to makes them one) smh

          • Yeah the trolls ignored the actual topic, and created red herrings about is the discrimination right or wrong.

          • You are making a false equivalence and showing your ignorance of Christianity.

            Your argument taking a poll because no one took a poll. You can tell when its a gay wedding. and not religious in nature is a strawman, either by ignorance of Christianity or knowingly twisting it.

            If you understood what most Christians believe, then you would know that mixed race couples or mixed faith couples are not forbidden for Christians, and that that was only for Hebrews the Old Testament. And as far turning away people who are divorced and remarrying depends on why the divorce took place according to the New Testament.

            Also the bakers can’t know if straight people are mixed faith or divorced remarrying unless they are told or the baker asks. And mixed race would only be known if both individuals in the couple were there or they had photos.

          • Anonymous Me

            It is not discrimination, it is no more discrimination then if I choose not to be involved in abortions because they are against my personal principals. Absolutely no difference, and no one has the Right to force another person to act against their own morals, beliefs or principles. Do I discriminate against ALL women because I refuse to be involved in abortions? They can do as they chose, I even support their Right to have access to abortions, but they can not involve me in it, I won’t support it, emotionally, physically or financially. Its the same principle, do whatever you like, but don’t try to force others to be involved in your activities against their will. They have Rights too, the Right not to participate in anything against their will.

          • backell

            “Iit is no more discrimination then if I choose not to be involved in abortions because they are against my personal principals.”

            Actually, it is different. It’s very different. It’s a false equivalence. If you have a clinic, no one can require you to provide abortions. But, if you do, you can’t only perform it on certain groups.

            That’s the problem with your analogy here. No one is requiring you to sell wedding cakes. But if you’re going to sell them to some people, you have to sell them to everyone.

          • No you shouldn’t have to for any reason. ONLY the government should not be able to discriminate.

          • But they don’t have that right IF they can NOT not bake a gay wedding cake. If there is only one bakery, go to the next town or make your own cake.

          • Montanagirl1

            Sorry, freedoms lost seems to be only suffered by Christians, as they are willing to turn the other cheek, What about the in you face irony that Muslims are allowed to discriminate and Christians aren’t? I guess the Christians can be singled out for special treatment and the Muslims get a pass? That’s not my definition of freedom. It applies equally to all or it doesn’t apply at all.

          • Don

            Freedom is making your own choices and who care what the gays do , doesn’t mean you have to make them a cake or associate with them or paint their house or wash their car .

          • backell

            No one is saying you have to paint their house or play with them. But for them it also means being able to conduct commerce without having to pass your religious test.

            So yes, freedom DOES mean that you have to sell them a cake if you bake cakes for a living. If you’re a painter, you have to paint their house if they’re going to pay you. If you run a car wash, you have to wash their car.

            Freedom isn’t freedom TO discriminate. It’s freedom FROM discrimination.

          • No Freedom means that gays or straights don’t have to bake a cake for anyone they don’t want to bake a cake for, and for any reason.

            Freedom is freedom for anyone TO discriminate against anyone they chose for any reason. It’s freedom FROM discrimination ONLY from GOVERNMENT.

          • Don

            Your argument is weak

          • backell

            Which is why all anyone can do is offer strawmen and red herrings to refute it?

          • Guest

            Audrey . although William `s comment is shocking… last week I got a great new Mitsubishi Evo since I been bringin in $9797 this-past/month and would you believe, $10k this past-munth . with-out a doubt this is the best-work I’ve ever done . I started this six months/ago and almost straight away began to earn minimum $82 per-hour . you can look here..

            ►►►►►►►►►► ­ htpp://0nlinepaybusinessc0mpany.bizzz…..

            ♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♡♥♥♥♡♥♥♡

          • Guest

            ✯☆☆86$ AshDeSlave :

            Going Here you

            Can Find Out,,,

            ►►► > http://momjobsnetwork.com/get/opsition

            ❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂❂

          • Rick Elliott

            A gay bakery owner receives a request from a Christian organization for a cake bearing the words “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” for a rally supporting traditional marriage. Does he have a right to refuse service? An African American bakery owner receives a request for a cake depicting a lynching for a KKK gathering. Does he have a right to refuse the order? A bakery owned by a war veteran receives a request for a cake for an anti-war demonstration that is to include a disparaging slogan about America. Does he have a right to refuse service? These examples may be extreme, even unlikely to occur as the Christian organization, KKK, and anti-war demonstrators are not likely to knowingly select these bakeries to provide service to them in the first place, but the point is that under your scenario each of these bakery owners must violate their conscience, morals, and personal beliefs simply because they operate a business.

            Also, when did homosexuality become a religion? Just curious.

          • backell

            Another false equivalence. You’re saying that the cake says a particular hateful message. The “message” on the cake isn’t what’s being protested by the baker, it’s the event it’s being used in.

            So, no, I don’t buy any of your scenarios at all. If a gay baker gets a call for a cake from a church, he’s not going to refuse service because of it’s message.

            And homosexuality isn’t a religion. But what’s the difference between discriminating against a person who isn’t your religion and discriminating against person who is a different religion?

          • Rick Elliott

            Point taken. Eliminate the message. My point remains the same.

          • backell

            But if you eliminate the message, the point doesn’t remain the same.

            If a church with an anti-gay stance wanted to order a cake from a gay baker (not that they would) and the gay baker refused to bake the cake based on the church’s theology, the gay baker is wrong.

          • Actually, they might do it to ruffle feathers, even IF they threw the cake in the trash after ordering. Actually this did happen, where a hate group, claiming to be Christian, asked for a God hates gays cake, the baker said she would bake the cake and even give him the toppers to do the thing himself, but would not make the anti-gay cake.

          • Say What

            Your reasoning seems flawed. I know for a fact that any group or community wishing to do business, will usually keep the money flowing within their said group. So why are there high numbers asking a non-community business to provide them with their stupid cake. mmmmm very, very suspicious, so I must wonder. Can I approach and request my Doctor and every doctor I chose, to provide me with my abortion? When my current GP says no can I than take him, and every Doctor, to court screaming discrimination. I should win that case right? It’s plain and simple, this is an “attack” on anyone who does not agree with their “choices”, not and attack on someones rights. Hell, we already have a discrimination law in place to protect people who really are experiencing discrimination. Perhaps these people should fight a good fight, like saving the lives of people in the middle east who are murdered for being gay instead of a stupid cake! Maybe that would make gay people less hostile!

          • backell

            “So why are there high numbers asking a non-community business to provide them with their stupid cake.”

            This makes no sense. If you’re open to the public you’re a community business. This is is the ESSENCE of discrimiantion laws.

            “. Can I approach and request my Doctor and every doctor I chose, to provide me with my abortion?”

            No, only those who provide that service. This is a false equivalence. You’re talking about WHAT is provided, not to WHOM it is provided.

            “Hell, we already have a discrimination law in place to protect people who really are experiencing discrimination.”

            Yes, and that’s the law that this is breaking.

            “Perhaps these people should fight a good fight, like saving the lives of people in the middle east who are murdered for being gay instead of a stupid cake!”

            Or maybe you should do that instead of defending your stupid “right” to discriminate about who you sell it to.

            “Maybe that would make gay people less hostile!”

            Yeah, nothing “hostile” to your reply at all. Maybe yous should take your own advice.

          • Say What

            how about i go to a gay m/f doctor. They are pro life and refuse and refer, what than? The funny thing here is that I’ve been in the gay community for 30 years and I wouldn’t mind going to a business that has no qualm about providing me my stupid cake.

          • backell

            Nothing you said has anything to do with the point.

            If a doctor provides a service, they have to provide that service to anyone, regardless of their religious preferences.

            If a baker provides a cake, they have to provide it to anyone, regardless of their religion.

            It doesn’t what the sexual preference or religion of the provider is. It doesn’t matter what the sexual preference or religion of the customer/patient is.

            If you’re providing a good or service, you have to provide it to everyone, regardless of their religion, race or whatever. That’s discrimination.

          • Kathleen

            tell that to the business that are excluded from that right as they are not muslim…Hypocrite you are. only Christians have to go against their religion? Really? Really?

          • backell

            Christians don’t have to go against their religion. Other people are allowed to against the Christians religion, and Christians aren’t allowed to tell them they can’t.

            Neither are Muslims. This is a total red herring. Who said it was OK for Muslims? Not one person.

          • Kathleen

            and where’s the news report on TV? Not anywhere I’ve seen. Just the average Joe bakery trying to hold on to their values which they’re not allowed to have. Muslims will have no backlash as it would be prejudicial to their religion period. There would be an uproar in their community saying they’re being persecuted. Say it wouldn’t happen.

          • backell

            “And where’s the news report on TV?”

            Why should there be? Are you really trying to say that the influence of Muslims in the US is the same as Christians? This is classic false equivalence.

          • backell

            No, I’m saying that if baking a cake is against your religion, don’t bake cakes. You don’t really have the right to tell people how they can use the cake you sell them. That’s not your religion at issue, it’s there’s.

          • That is BS, so if we don’t believe in supporting certain lifestyles then don’t ever go into business? Ridiculous.

          • bumpkin

            FREEDOM of RELIGION is for EVERY American, not just the ones who are not in business. You are full o’ bull. A sign that says “We have the right to refuse service to ANYONE” is fair warning to anyone who comes in their private (as in not public, as in the freaking government has a hell of a long nose, and they need to back-up to keep it out of the citizens’ business.) business. A business does not owe you squat. (unless you have already paid for their service.)

  • Peter L Marzullo

    As to the things he asked about,I don’t think it’s about religious freedom at all. IMO,it’s about freedom in general. True,American,USA freedom guaranteed to ALL CITIZENS of the USA under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe that’s what all this PC nonsense is about. Here we are free to take our business elsewhere if we don’t like the service or management of a particular establishment. We do not have a right to forcefully infringe on the rights of others while taking a stand for ours.

    Calling it “hate speech” or “fear mongering” just because you don’t agree with them and then sue them or cause their business to suffer damage is doing just that,infringing upon the rights of others. People are not supposed to be allowed to do that and I believe there are laws on both the state (most) and federal levels.

    • Norma Kinsey

      that’s the point it’s all about shoving the gay agenda down also throat. they like Muslims are the only ones that should have rights in their eyes.

      • hgreer

        I would of baked the cake for them. I would of added an extra ingredient at no cost.

        • Bongo Bob

          Remember that scene in Roots where Cicley Tyson spit in the drinks?

          Yeah, something like that! LOL

          • rtyrtfghffg

            ☃✬♪►< GFFM Bryson . I agree that Benjamin `s storry is terrific… on monday I bought a top of the range Chevrolet from having made $4812 this – five weeks past and a little over $10k last-month . this is really the best job I have ever had . I actually started three months/ago and immediately was bringing home over $83 p/h . look at this web-site,✏✏✏

            ►►►►► -> PICK UP MORE INFO HERE, <-

            ∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎

        • BreakingNews

          that’s because you’re a vile person.

          • GoneFishing

            pfttt…

          • blue_persuasion

            The only thing that’s vile is what the fagalicious gaystapo is doing.

        • Guest

          ★★★★ 86$ PER HOUℛ@ai15:

          Going Here you
          Can Find Out,

          ►►►►► https://DailyWorkOnline.com/gets/position

          ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚

      • < I started freelancing over internet, doing various simple jobs which only requires from you a computer and internet access and I am so happy with it… It's been six months since i started this and i got paid total of 36,000 bucks… Basicly i profit 80 dollars every hour and work for 3 to 4 hours on daily basis.And awesome thing about this job is that you can decide when to work yourself and for how long and the payments are weekly.

        ▬▬▬▬►►► -> Work from home opportunity! <-<-

        ∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎∎

      • backell

        So wait a second. If you can’t shove your anti-gay agenda down other people’s throats, that them shoving the gay agenda down yours?

        To me, that sounds like YOU’RE the one saying that YOU’RE the only one with rights. That’s what’s ridiculous about all this. You self-righteous people think that as long as you can’t tell other people how to behave then they’re “shoving” their lifestyle down their throat.

        Why should a gay couple getting married be treated any differently than a straight couple getting married? What right do you have to tell them what to do? And how is it a violation of your rights for them to do so?

        • Ryno Lascavio

          Nobody is saying gay people cant do WHATEVER THEY WANT!!! But when the government DEMANDS that someone be a part of a gay wedding when it goes against what they believe, well thats BS.
          Christians companies serve, employ, protect and embrace gays every day without missing a step. But MAKING an individual do something that goes against their spiritual practices is against the core foundation of why this country was created.
          This issue is a two way street. Honestly, why cant people see that?

          • backell

            “But when the government DEMANDS that someone be a part of a gay wedding when it goes against what they believe, well thats BS.”

            Selling someone a cake doesn’t make you “part of a gay wedding.” It makes you a baker.

            “But MAKING an individual do something that goes against their spiritual practices is against the core foundation of why this country was created.”

            If baking a cake is against your religious practices you shouldn’t be doing it. But that’s all your doing.

          • Ryno Lascavio

            Your right, baking a cake does not make you “part of a gay wedding”. But you know thats not the issue. Its having to “design” a cake to say things that support gay marriage that is the problem. When a florist is asked to bring flowers to the ceremony and “design”, that is participation.
            You know whats going on here, you just dont care about seeing the other side.
            You’re not very good at making strawmen either, but keep trying.

          • backell

            “Its having to “design” a cake to say things that support gay marriage that is the problem. ”

            Actually it’s not. You’re following the directions of the patron. That’s not participating in the wedding. It’s participating in your business. What you’re saying is that patrons have to pass a religious test to use your business. That’s against the Civil Rights Act.

            I’m not very good at making a strawman. But I’m not erecting one. You are. The strawman here is that somehow you’re being “forced” to do anything other than conduct the business that you own and operate.

          • w

            @ backell, Bingo, your business to conduct as you see fit to operate and serve whom YOU CHOOSE if so so choose to serve. If you rather not do biz with a person, that is your decision not the Govs. to force you. The person has the option of giving their biz to someone that does want their biz! Now the time when it is a Civil Rights issue is if I refused to hire or promote or give a raise etc… and so on… You can not think you have rights and I do not and there for I must do as you wish, no it does not work that way. Really an easy concept if you allow your brain to actually think!

          • jamiemcg

            Ummm…you know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was born around black people not being served at businesses, right? And you know that many states and cities have laws that say “you can not discriminate against someone because of their race or sexual orientation” right? That’s a thing. Just so you know.

          • DId you know that the government that was the one who made those laws, most businesses only refused service because they did not want the government to close them down. The Civil rights law wt to far when it told private business owners who they must allow in their business.

          • This its not participating but just part of your business, and if you don’t like it then don’t bake cakes is a BS argument. And it is NOT against the civil rights act, that only covers you discriminating against them for their religion.

          • Kevin Higginbotham

            You don’t think making the cake for them makes them a part of a gay wedding. But maybe their religious beliefs make them think that, and since when are you allowed to dictate to others what their religious beliefs are or aren’t? That is the crux of this whole issue. You think you know better than me what my religious beliefs are, and you are trying to tell me how I can or can’t worship my God in a country where I am supposedly free to do so. It works both ways. You feel the homosexuals rights are being infringed upon, and I feel my religious freedoms are. So let’s look at this objectively. Is there a solution that satisfies both parties? One where the homosexuals still get their cake, and where I as a Christian get to honor my God? Yes. They can go to another bakery. Most bakeries, I assume, would gladly do it for them. Then they are happy because they got their cake, I am happy because I got to exercise my religious freedom, and on top of that, the other bakery is happy because they got a paying customer! Everyone wins! What a simple solution!
            If I walked into a store as a Christian and asked for a service, but the owner believed it would be violating his religion to provide it for me, and politely declined, I would respect his rights to religious freedom and go elsewhere. All I would like is for others to do the same for me. It doesn’t matter if they’re homosexual or not. If my best friend or another Christian came in and asked me to do something I thought was a sin, I would have to politely decline as well. If a homosexual or someone who practiced a different religion from me came in and asked me to do something that in my religious beliefs is neutral or not a sin, then I would gladly do it. It has nothing to do with the person/people doing the asking and everything to do with what they are asking me to do. If I believe doing it violates my religion, then I have the right not to. And I would give you or anyone else the same right. That’s the real definition of equality, the word that the gay rights activists keep throwing around.
            Please stop making this bill what it is not. It does not attack homosexuals or anyone else in any way. In fact, homosexuality is not even mentioned once in the entire bill. Nor is the word discriminate, as I recall. Nor is Christianity or any other religion. It is simply allowing any religious person to freely exercise his religion, as long as his free exercise thereof is not unreasonably restrictive of others. And as I have already pointed out, it is not unreasonably restrictive when a gay couple can go to almost any other bakery and still get the cake and be happy.

          • jamiemcg

            So then do you believe a Christian who believes that the races should not mix, should be allowed to deny a interracial couple a cake for their wedding? The same exact biblical arguments were used to defend bigotry not very long ago.

            Also, no, there aren’t other bakeries in every part of the country. So saying “just go to another bakery” is unfair. These bigotbakers are denying service based on who the customer is. It’s the same exact cake they are making for a heterosexual customer, no difference. They are denying service based on what the customer is going to do with that product. And because of that, you believe the baker is endorsing what the customer does with the product. So does that mean a gun salesman who sells a murderer a gun is endorsing that murder?

          • Kevin Higginbotham

            I’m saying this, nothing more, nothing less: A Christian or person of any other religion has the right to respectfully and politely decline to do a service he believes would be wrong for him to do.
            No, they are not denying service based on who the customer is, as I already mentioned. I will serve anyone, until they ask me to sin. Then I will not sin, no matter who asks. It has 0% to do with who is asking.
            Does a gun salesman who sells a murderer a gun endorse the murder . . . well, let’s see here. What if the customer walked in and said, “I need a gun to murder my wife with.” Would that change things a little?

          • As a private citizen partaking in a private contract in business, yes they are free to do so, because the US Constitution allows freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transactions.

          • Montanagirl1

            Well perhaps gays should quit hauling bakers and florists into court, then, they suffer NOTHING by taking their business elsewhere. Everybody wins!

          • CuriousQuestion

            Hi backell. I’ve read a lot of this string and it’s an interesting discussion. I have to say that I fall on the side of the business owners right to not participate because of religious beliefs. However, I’m willing to have the scripture tell me different. Since government can not trump religious freedom that’s where I’m coming from here.

            You seem to be saying that being asked to make a cake (we’ll use that scenario) that is designed in a way that supports something the owner disagrees with is not the same as participating in the action. I don’t see how the 2 can be separated. I think this falls under 1 Corinthians 10 about having knowledge of something, my own belief in that knowledge and then the conscience of the other person involved and my approval of the action. Example:

            If I make a cake that supports a witchcraft ceremony (for instance) that cake will be used at the ceremony. I’ve therefore participated by virtue of the fact that I made the cake celebrating the event. You’re saying I’m just making a cake. I’m disagree. I’m making a cake “for” an event; I’m participating by knowledge. So in that I would choose not to participate. If I was asked to bake a cake and “not told” what it was for, that’s different because of conscience. I didn’t have knowledge of the event. This would be like Paul telling the Corinthians that they shouldn’t eat meat sacrificed to idols for the sake of the other person. It’s a witness to “the other person” that you disagree with the practice. Not to condemn the person but the practice. But what you seem to be saying is that if I choose to not participate in certain activities that are contrary to my religious beliefs I should just not have a business. I think that would me that a government law trumps my religious beliefs, which it can’t. I’m not discriminating against the person I’m choosing not to participate in an activity that I disagree with, as the bible tells me I should. That would qualify as a religious belief of conviction.

            Next you also seem to be saying that “baking a cake” is not a religious practice or act of worship. But as a Christian (I think you said you were a straight, Christian man) you would know that the bible says that “whatever” we do we should do it for the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 & Colossians 3:17. Everything we do (“everything”) is supposed to be a refection of and act of worship to God. It would seem to me that the bible is saying that whether I’m a bank teller opening an account for someone or a person baking cakes I should be doing it as worship unto God. I’m not saying that Christians are somehow perfect in doing that but I am saying that that is what the bible tells us to do. So how do I reconcile that?

          • OK, even if we buy your argument that a baking a cake isn’t part of the gay wedding (it is cause your work is presented there), then what about making the photographer, caterer, musician, wedding planner, DJ, ect? They most certainly are a part of the wedding.

            You are disingenuous, baking a cake isn’t against their spiritual practice or beliefs, baking one to be used on a gay wedding is.

          • backell

            Providing a service is not endorsing the activity any more than selling someone a gun that is used in a murder makes you a murderer.

          • Bad argument. Providing a service IS endorsing the activity if you know what providing that service is for, like IF I sell a gun to someone who has told me that they are gong to use it to commit a murder and sell it to them anyways.

          • backell

            That’s a CRIME, so in that sense it IS a bad example.

            But the question is, would you ask? Do the gunmakers not make guns because they MIGHT be used in a murder?

            Do you ask if someone is going to watch porn on a computer?

            Do you worry about whether someone is going to commit a sin with everything you sale?

            Sorry, dude. That doesn’t work. The problem is you’re ASKING what they’re going to do with it. It’s not your business.

          • Ken

            How is making a cake a violation of someone’s religious principles?

          • God tells us NOT to participate in another’s sin, so making a cake for their wedding, which they believe to be sin would be going against their religion.

        • Rich

          Nobody’s saying they can’t get married. Just that we have a right to refuse ANYONE if we own the business. If we are FORCED to serve them, against our own religious beliefs, we have been denied our right as business owners to serve whom we wish.

          • backell

            “Nobody’s saying they can’t get married.”

            Nobody is saying that you’re saying that.

            “Just that we have a right to refuse ANYONE if we own the business. ”

            Actually you don’t. The law says you can’t. It’s the Civil Rights Act, and it specifically says you can’t discriminate based on religion.

            “If we are FORCED to serve them, against our own religious beliefs, we have been denied our right as business owners to serve whom we wish.””

            No you haven’t been. You can still be a Christian. Selling them a cake isn’t against your religion. If it is, don’t run a bakery. This notion that somehow if you’re selling them a cake you’re endorsing their wedding isn’t true.

            What you’re REALLY doing is forcing patrons to pass a religious test before you’ll conduct business with them.

          • Its not against the civil rights act because one it does not protect gays and two it only covers not serving people because of their religion, not because of theirs.

            And God tells Christians not to do anything that glorifies sin, so if we believe the bible says homosexual behavior is sin, then gay weddings are glorifying that sin, and us making a cake for it helps to glorify it. So yes against their religion.

            And BS, we are not forcing anyone to pass a religious test, we are saying we can not participate in what we consider sin.

          • jamiemcg

            So are you okay with a bakery turning down an interracial couple who needs a wedding cake? It wasn’t very long ago, that very same bible was being used to argue against that from happening, too. If that’s cool with you, I guess we all know what kind of person you are and what you believe. If it’s not, you just have a personal (not religious) animus against gay people…most likely because that which we fear most, we more than likely are.

          • A private citizen partaking in a private contract in business, yes they are free to do so, because the US Constitution allows freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transactions.

        • blue_persuasion

          No, idiot, the only one shoving anything down anyone else’s throat is the lowlife who is going into a Christian establishment (and many previous reports have shown that the gays KNEW they were Christians) and demand a service they know they’ll be refused. The Christian shop owners are not going into gay homes, beating them over the head with their Bibles. The fact that you can’t differentiate between the two shows what a moron you are.

          • backell

            “No, idiot, the only one shoving anything down anyone else’s throat is the lowlife who is going into a Christian establishment (and many previous reports have shown that the gays KNEW they were Christians) and demand a service they know they’ll be refused.”

            OK, here comes the name calling. How very Christian of you. Jesus is proud.

            And sorry, you got your facts wrong on this. The only case where there have been suits is where a contract was agreed on, and then breached.

            This is a myth that gays are skulking about looking to ruin good Christian businesses by forcing them to cook gay wedding cakes.

            And no, the gays aren’t going into Christians homes, beating them over the heads with gayness. They’re going into a business, offered to the PUBLIC, agreeing to a contract, and then having the “Christian business” (by the way there’s no such thing under the law) is breaching their contract.

          • blue_persuasion

            “And sorry, you got your facts wrong on this. The only case where there
            have been suits is where a contract was agreed on, and then breached.”

            That’s a downright lie.

          • backell

            I’ll allow for exceptions I didn’t know about. For the most part, though, it’s true. Look, just because your favorite conservative media outlet is telling you that all those mean gays are walking around trying to find innocent Christians and force them into baking gay wedding cakes doesn’t mena it’s true.

            The vast majority of the lawsuits are over breach of contract. Call it a lie if you want. That doesn’t mean it is.

          • Montanagirl1

            It certainly is Blue Persuasion. No contract was involved with the flowershop in Richmond, WA at all. She was loving and sympathetic in her refusal to do the flowers for the gay wedding. Since the state of Washington does not have an RFRA like law, she was fined. I consider it pretty sick for gays to target small business owners knowing full well they could walk across the street to purchase what they wanted. And the so-called similarities to the Black Civil Rights Movement are laughable.

          • Johnathan McFadden

            Maybe they seen her work and preferred her over others? The world is so sad how everyone hates everyone because they are gay, black, white, latino or don’t have the same religious belief.I’m gay and I have a lot of friends who are from all different walks of life and religious beliefs and we get along just fine and if I where to get married I can say that they would make me a cake go to my wedding etc.. I however do not believe in organized religion as most of it tells how you should love everyone and be a good person and the only one who should pass judgement is God, but then when it works for them they disobey that… I believe everyone is a human and should be treated as such. If everyone thought like me Man the world would be so much better!

          • Montanagirl1

            What is your response, then to the refusal of Muslims to bake cakes for gay weddings, as was demonstrated above?

          • jamiemcg

            The gay homes are not public establishments which by being a public establishment agree to adhere to the business laws of the state and/or city. The fact that you can’t comprehend that shows what a moron you are.

          • The business is NOT a public establishment aka owned by the government. It is a private establishment open to the public. BIG DIFFERENCE. His example was bad about the homes. He should have said IF a Christian wanted the bible verse that says homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    • backell

      “I believe that’s what all this PC nonsense is about. Here we are free to take our business elsewhere if we don’t like the service or management of a particular establishment.”

      Got to love it when people start throwing around “PC nonsense” as though that makes a point other than that you think that it somehow makes your right to say nonsensical things.

      Freedom in general is being allowed to be a different religion and not be denied the right to be treated differently than others.

      • Peter L Marzullo

        Exactly what being Politically Correct is eroding “bucks” against. The PC police,mostly liberals,say we can do this or say that but we can’t do that or say this. effectively denying a person’s right to free speech,freedom of religion and freedom from having our right infringed upon. Political Correctness is one of the worst terms to ever making into the mainstream language of society today. It is where a lot or most of our freedoms begin to be lost when one person or group of persons thinks they can tell anyone else how they should live,what they should say,buy,go,etc. It’s the beginning of denial of freedoms.

        • backell

          Blah blah blah. It’s not the “PC Police” that say it. It’s the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          • Peter L Marzullo

            That statement has nothing to do with this topic,it really doesn’t. the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Really? Discussion over.

          • jamiemcg

            Peter’s not a fan of being told that his statements apply to more than just one group of people. I’m pretty sure he’s okay being a bigot, he just doesn’t want to have to be seen as a racist bigot as well.

          • Peter L Marzullo

            You know what? I was going to answer your other question but because you jumped to calling me names which usually apply to the one who first calls the other,I will not continue this discussion with you. Very typical of a “tolerant” progressive liberal. I will wish you peace and a happy Easter.

          • jamiemcg

            LOL of course you were.

          • That is a red herring and a strawman. This isn’t about rather Peter is a bigot. Its about a private citizen having the actual rights of an individual: Freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

          • Again, the civil rights act of 1964 does NOT protect gays And it only protects the owner from discriminating based on the customers religion, not the owners religious convictions.

          • backell

            The Civil Rights act does not protect gays. But it does protect people from discrimination based on religion.

            The problem is that you’re inserting your religion into it.

          • The problem you have is NOT understanding that the Civil Rights Act protects them from me discriminating against their religion, NOT me having a a reason based on my conscious that may be based on my religious morality. If I am wrong then show me the section that says I am wrong. You are making the unsubstantiated claim, so you have the burden of proof to prove it. Post it here and put up or shut up.

          • backell

            “The problem you have is NOT understanding that the Civil Rights Act protects them from me discriminating against their religion, NOT me having a a reason based on my conscious that may be based on my religious morality.”

            No. The problem is that weak association is invalid and inconsistent. You’re using YOUR religion to discriminate.

            I suppose if you had a verse in the bible that says, “Thou shalt not do business with sinners,” you’d have an argument. But the thing is, there is no such thing (in fact, there’s more to the opposite of that.)

        • ophelia

          “freedoms begin to be lost when one person or group of persons thinks they can tell anyone else how they should live” Oh you mean like right wingers who are pro-life, oppose gay marriage, etc…that sort of thing? Are we talking about the part where real legal rights are denied to people or just the supposed rights of business owners to discriminate against people who they don’t approve of?

          Can a business owner decide to quit making baby shower cakes for unwed mothers? Oh wait, no, they would probably go out of business if they started actually applying the “sin meter” to all customers.

          • Peter L Marzullo

            You have missed the point completely and have taken what I’ve said out of context which is typical of liberals. Not quoting the entire statement in the context in which it was said,very typical. You really are missing the point.

          • No rights are being violated, you have no right to force another to serve you even if they pay you. And the Constitution does not protect any fake right.

            NOT supposed but actual rights of the business owner: Freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

            And I disagree with people forcing their religion through government on people with law. And if they do deny unwed mothers, and loose business then that is their choice. Let the market put them out of business IF most people think their ban is awful.

    • jamiemcg

      I take it then that you’re cool with a business refusing to serve black people or even better – what if a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple due to their religious beliefs? The same arguments were used not so long ago. Or are you for equal opportunity discrimination?

      • Peter L Marzullo

        You’re taking what I said way too far and out of context. I not saying anything of the sort. I suggest you read the entire comment/discussion carefully before making such assumptions about me or slinging accusations. Makes you seem petty and ignorant.

        • jamiemcg

          So answer the question then. If you actually believe what you say you believe, it shouldn’t be hard. Should a bakery be allowed refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple? I mean, can’t the couple just take their business elsewhere as you said? It’s not out of context whatsoever. It’s a wedding, just different people being swapped out.

          • Peter L Marzullo

            I see the point you’re trying to make but it’s not the same,by changing the variables you’re making a different argument. One which I will not get dragged into over the internet. I will always be wrong in your mind.

          • jamiemcg

            Then please tell me what the difference is? According to your very own argument, “We do not have a right to forcefully infringe on the rights of others while taking a stand for ours.” Not too long ago, interracial couples were fighting for their right to be married – JUST LIKE GAY PEOPLE. And I’m certain that businesses refused service to those couples because they felt it was against their beliefs. How is it different and why are you so afraid to answer the question?

          • There is no difference, as a private citizen partaking in a private contract in business, yes they are free to do so, because the US Constitution allows freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transactions.

          • Capdragon

            Pete, you just lost.
            Actually, you lost a few comments back but it just hasn’t sunk in to your head yet.
            The variables that jamie brought up are the same.
            You just can’t realize that.

          • Pete lost but I didn’t.

          • Yes, as a private citizen partaking in a private contract in business, yes they are free to do so, because the US Constitution allows freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transactions.

      • Private citizens partaking in a private contract in business, yes they are free to do so, because the US Constitution allows freedom of concussion, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination.

        ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transactions.

  • jansav

    Excellent point but no one cares. They seriously will not give up on this.

  • Guest
  • Not Sure

    Excellent points, it is definitely NOT freedom when everyone is made to bow to the (I love how you put it) cultural Marxism that is politically correctness.

    • Stuart McHardy

      Others just aptly term them the Gay Mafia.

      • Arthur Morse

        The Gaystapo.

    • a mere skeptic

      You don’t have to be politically correct, you just have to not discriminate against people if you open your business up to the public. There’s a very big difference. One is turning somebody away because you do not like something about them, the other one is using a more socially accepted word in favor of less socially acceptable words. You’re free to do that at your own risk, you just can’t discriminate. It goes both ways: homosexuals can’t discriminate against Christians, Christians can’t discriminate against homosexuals.

      • Tamberly

        So when my husband makes choices to consult for companies that have at least 1 server and 5 desktops at minimum, he is discriminating and that’s wrong? He should serve everyone whenever they want him to? I’m sorry, but exercising his discretion so that he won’t lose money in business is not wrong. Those who think otherwise have never run a business.

      • jules2u

        The bakers who refused to do wedding cakes are not discriminating against individuals, they are refusing to make a certain product. As the video even states, if a person comes in to have a basic birthday cake, they would be served, it is when they have something special made for a special event that they are turned down. In the one case where the baker was sued, they actually made items for the couple that were standard products, they only refused to make the special wedding cake for an event that was not even legal at the time in the state.

        • a mere skeptic

          I respect your point, but I am not persuaded. The product, a cake, is essentially the same as those offered to everybody else. The business provides a degree of customization to its non-second-class customers. The degree to which the homosexuals wanted their cake customized was well within their abilities and well within the type of products they provide others. The only difference was that it was for a homosexual event. Not liking that these people were participating in an event that in no way affects them, they refused service. They were not turned down because they had a wedding, they were turned down because they had a homosexual wedding. It was a homosexual wedding because the parties involved were both of the same sex and therefore were homosexuals. The only difference between the custom cake requested by these customers and everybody else that was these customers were homosexuals.

          • jules2u

            You are saying that no matter what a person wants put on a cake, any baker should be obligated to make it? Maybe say some KKK or Nazi symbols, or something depicting nudity, maybe even something like love for a child in perverted manner. You see your thoughts will open those doors as well. They were not turned down because they were gay, they had made purchases in the store before without incidence, it was the event that was turned down, not the individuals.

          • a mere skeptic

            The event was turned down because of the individuals’ orientation.

            The First Amendment provides for freedom of speech. Your KKK and Nazi examples may be in the grey area given that they may be hate speech, but I believe the same standard applies.

            So what if the customer is a Nazi or in the KKK? They are free to follow whatever ideology that they want to and therefore cannot be refused service because they are Nazis or KKK members. I do not in any way endorse their ideology and find them reprehensible, but that’s the beauty of the First Amendment. It’s the same one that protects Christians and now it’s being twisted by Christians to try and give them the right to discriminate against others, which it does not do.

            With regard to your love for a child thing, other laws may allow for that person’s eventual arrest if the desired text is reflective of any real events that may have or will occur. However, simple text most likely would be okay.

            Given that you’ve pushed this rule to the extreme, there might be an exception for hate speech. For instance, I have difficulty seeing a court upholding something like “I hate n*****s” However, if the cake was for a KKK event maybe we can find some text that will still allow for the event to continue without being so horrible. What the bakery cannot do, however, is refuse the cake because the person follows the KKK ideology.

            This is distinguishable from a homosexual wedding cake because there was no hate speech on the cake and the bakery refused to service any wedding event in which the parties involved were homosexual. This is discrimination.

          • No hate speech is covered by the first amendment. The first amendment does not protect the Klan from me refusing them service, that is ONLY with the government. The government can not refuse the klan, but a private citizen can even in his business IF we are talking natural rights protected by the 1st.

            Rights are something we have from nature, not government, that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment. This allows them to deny service no matter what the Court or the lower laws say.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

          • jules2u

            You are also stating that no baker could refuse to make a Klan wedding cake, or one for a nude wedding if the decorations fit the event, even though those things may go against the baker’s personal or religious beliefs? Let’s just force any business owner to do everything seems to be your stance on this, which is not what our nation is about, considering some of those rights are protected by federal law.

          • a mere skeptic

            If you are a business who opens its doors to the public, you are required by law not to discriminate. While I understand the ethical dilemma you face in having to provide service to people so clearly bigoted, racist, and hostile to your beliefs, you accepted the risk of having to serve those you consider undesirables when you opened up your doors to the public. If you do not want to accept that risk, consider a business that will not force you to sin against your God if you were serving everybody.

            Discrimination is no longer legal as it was many years ago.

            Edit: Alternatively, you could consider going to a country where discrimination is allowed. I don’t know about you, but I do not want to live in those countries. They do a lot worse than simply refuse to bake you wedding cakes if you possess an incorrect ideology.

            Edit 2: Those rights to religion protected by federal law you’re referring to apply to your ability to practice your religion. That practicing of religion does not carry over to businesses open to the public if your religion says it’s cool to discriminate.

          • jules2u

            You are required by law not to discriminate against certain people, which in reality the bakery did not, they served the individuals things like birthday cakes and such in the past. What they refused was a specific item. So because they refused a specific item, they are suddenly bigoted, racist, or what have you? What part of selling items to the people in the past and refusing to make one item is suddenly discrimination? Honestly, If I wanted a wedding cake as a birthday cake, they should also be able to refuse the service

          • Not true, there are no federal laws, fewer state laws and even fewer local laws that prevent refusal to service except for protected classes, and sexual orientation is not one of them.

          • passn8ldy

            So, if you own a bakery and I come in there and want a cake made to look like a sexual organ, you are discriminating against me if you refuse to make THAT cake? Don’t say what you are wanting is different. It’s NOT! You are saying no matter how I feel, I have to make a specific type of product because the customer wants it. If I don’t – I’m gonna get sued. So – guess I need to go and cause a stink because I can’t get a cake made like sexual parts of a human body. Now – that would open a can of worms wouldn’t it?

          • a mere skeptic

            Honestly, that is a tough question for me. I see your point. This is all opinion and I am not sure about what the law would dictate in response to a request for a graphic depiction of sexual organs, but here’s some observations:

            1) Objectively, sexual organs can be viewed as offensive. Example: we are not allowed to run through the streets naked. To imply that we have free reign over public displays of nudity is false.

            2) Objectively, homosexuality cannot be viewed as offensive. Although Christians view it as morally wrong, an objective view requires that we view this from a “separation of church and state” perspective and we thus cannot factor in religion because it is not universal. I respect your right to refuse service to homosexuals as a private citizen, but I do not respect your right to refuse service to homosexuals as a business open to the public.

            I think a court might allow you to refuse service for a graphic depiction of a sexual organ or nudity. I do not think they would allow you to refuse service for a homosexual, given that you can use reasoning to determine that the refusal of service is solely because of the customer’s orientation, which is what makes them a protected class.

            The big thing here is this: you have rights as a private citizen, but those rights change the moment you go into business and open up to the public. The only time discrimination would be considered acceptable is if it were harming somebody — which objectively the sexual organ might do. I understand your argument about being harmed because of your beliefs about homosexuality, but as a business open to the public you cannot pick and choose you will and will not serve on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexuality, and other class-related factors.

          • Open to the public does not mean public. The seperation of church and state does not apply because the private business open to the public is NOT PUBLIC>>>>

          • a mere skeptic

            As I said in another comment, you are correct that no federal law exists. However, you are completely wrong in your interpretation of what “open to the public” means. Open to the public refers to private businesses if they have applied for and obtained a business license and opens its doors to serve the community. Synonymous with “open to all.”

          • I never said that private businesses were not open to the public. I don’t believe in business licenses either, and we have not always had them.

            But even IF I accept the notion that we should have them, until the last 20 years they were considered private, but open to the public. Private has always meant private 100%, though you could not commit crimes on other like murder ect. Public was public aka government property.

            The courts were wrong in the last 20 years when they said that private businesses open to the public are public places. And, the court like most government, are trying to blur the lines between public and private. They do this for more money, power and control.

          • a mere skeptic

            Businesses that are open to the public and public businesses are two different things. You’re thinking of a public business when you mention a business run by the government. Private businesses can be (and I want to say almost always are, except for members only type businesses) open to the public. It’s all semantics really, and I see what you were trying to say.

          • I think you are mistaken, I never said (or never meant to say) a public business ie the government running a business. I am against government run businesses. I meant to say, if I did not say a private business open to the public is not public like government is public. I was saying a private business open to the public isn’t a public entity , only government is a public entity. Not semantics at all. Terms mean things, not just the redefinition government tries to give them to gain more, money power and control.

          • GZeus

            I don’t understand what is so difficult. If a customer wants to buy a product that is ALREADY sold by store then they have to sell it to whoever wants to buy it. If they sell wedding cakes or penis cakes, They sell to everyone. No one is forcing or suing shop owners to expand the products they sell.

          • Because we don’t want our products used for purposes we deem wrong. We have that natural right.

            Actually learn your laws, the Federal Government has no protections for Gays, Very few states do and even less towns do. WRONG!! And their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

          • GZeus

            The intended use of said cake (like all cakes) is to eat it. Is eating now “wrong”? This is why you are losing. Makes no sense.

          • Yes, a cake is for eating. But the the Christian God tells them to do everything they do for the Lord, because everything they do is worship to God. He also tells them not to participate in any way with someone’s sin, homosexuality is a a person’s sin and the wedding an extension of it.

            The cake for eating will be used to help celebrate or glorify that union, which Christians believe is sin.You can not make a product used to glorify sin as an act of worship to God, which God is is ALL actions.

            And no one is losing any argument. The country is deeply divided on this issue. It makes sense to the person who believes their religion forbids being part of the sinful wedding.

            Let’s get off your strawman of cake, what about forcing the photographer, the caterer, wedding planner, musicians, Djs, ect to participate, that is more than cake.That is asking them to be an active participant, yet they forced a photographer to do this or face consequences.

            This is NOT about CAKE, this is about the government not being able to FORCE people to do things that violate their right conscious (religious or secular), right to freedom of association (violated by making the associate), freedom of self determination (not being able to decide who they serve); ALL natural rights, protected by the first amendment.

          • Which is the owners rights to do based again on People having the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.
            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

        • GZeus

          Which is the gay wedding cake? I can’t tell the difference, can you?

          • That is a BS argument, because its about NOT making a cake for a gay wedding, because the owner thinks its wrong to be any part of it.

          • GZeus

            But cakes for second/third marriages are all just dandy even though divorce/adultery is explicitly forbidden in Bible. It even made your Top Ten (while ironically, homosexuality not mentioned). Non-virgins? No problem! Already pregnant? No problem! Drug addict? Not my concern! Wife Beater? Not asking about that! Deadbeat Dad? That’s a civil matter! Atheist? No problem? Just met last week? Aww, how romantic! Indicted for crimes? Not my place to judge!

            But law-abiding, responsible, long-time, loving same-sex couple who want to commit to each other? outrageous! how dare you, get out!

            The hypocrisy is why you are losing.

          • Actually, all the things are strawman and red herrings for different reasons, the difference with divorce and some of the others is the baker doesn’t necessarily know the couple has a divorced person, but might know when it is a gay wedding, either because they do want the topper, they come in together or they do want something written (all happen).

            Also NOT ALL divorce is is NOT forbidden in the bible. One can divorce for marital unfaithfullness, which covers adultery, various forms of abuse, abandonment and some others. As far as all the other sins you mentioned in that list, the baker can serve to them for things NOT related to or celebrating their sin activity, just like the would with gay folks.

            Most of the bakers also say they would serve gays for everything, but a gay wedding or anything that celebrates their gay union, and those that are being made to participate or pay consequences actually have done so to those trying to make them or break them.

            Though IF an extreme separatist baker refused to serve only his religion and no other sinners that would be their right under freedom of conscious, freedom of association, freedom of self determination and freedom of religion, all of which are covered under the 1st amendment of the US Constitution..

            Actually the bible says we are to judge or condemn sin, but not to judge or condemn the person, as in their character.

            Again, many no gay wedding bakers will, and have served gays for other things they deem not sinful. And no one is losing the argument of public opinion, that is fairly evenly divided on this serving issue.

      • passn8ldy

        Left wing liberals are ruining this country. You think YOUR rights and the way YOU feel are all that matter. Well, hate to burst your bubble but a lot of us just aren’t agreeing with you and to be honest – we are sick and tired of you trying to make us out to be horrible people because we don’t. We don’t mind if gays marry – that’s their business. Just as you shouldn’t mind if we are hetrosexual – that’s OUR business. And if we choose to not make money by preparing a cake that we find offensive for whatever reason – that’s our business! Listen – there are bakeries that do nothing but prepare porn cakes and they do a booming business.I don’t see anyone trying to close them down. If there weren’t other places that could fill the need – then it would be a different story but those of us who are straight are sick and tired of hearing nothing but about the rights of GAYS. HOW ABOUT US? DO WE NOT HAVE RIGHTS TOO?

        • a mere skeptic

          I am not a left-wing liberal. As a private citizen, you are not required to bake cakes for anybody, for any reason. As a business that is open to the public, you are legally required not to discriminate. That same standard applies to everybody, including homosexuals. Your rights to being heterosexual and Christian are not impeded. As a business open to the public, they are to the extent that you cannot discriminate.

          • Ferrari fan

            it’s not discrimination when the baker says, I will bake you another cake, but I will not bake one like *that*.

          • a mere skeptic

            It is when they are more than happy to bake *that* cake for anybody else other than that particular class. The only reason they won’t bake *that* cake for the customer is because *that* cake is for an event with homosexuals. The direct cause of the refusal is because the parties requesting the cake belong to the protected class of homosexuals. If they were heterosexuals, they could have *that* cake. But they’re not. So they are refused. That, by definition, is discrimination.

            The only way it would not be discrimination would be to forgo wedding cakes for everybody. You cannot limit your offers as a business open to the public to only specific classes. It’s the same reason why you cannot be turned down for being Christian and the same reason why I cannot be turned down for being an Atheist. Your freedom to avoid serving a specific class ends the moment you open up your business to the public.

          • Yes, it is discrimination, but in a free society based on libertarian ideals, then the baker is free not to bake a cake for anyone for any reason.

          • a mere skeptic

            I used to believe that, likely in as radical of a way that you do now. I’ve come to the conclusion for myself that this system can only exist in theory and not practice. If someone ever comes up with some compelling reasons for switching back, I’ll consider it.

            By the way I want to thank you for blowing up my email with your 17+ notifications to comments I made a month ago. I’m unsure if you just couldn’t keep the rebuttal to yourself or if you were hoping people would be too preoccupied to respond and you would get the last word. Regardless, if you show up within a reasonable time of an article being written I’ll consider expending a few hours of research into my responses to you. Until then, I’ve got a law school final in 9 hours to prepare for.

          • No, when I first started I didn’t notice the comments were a month ago. I saw what I consider incorrect views on rights, public vs private, and how no one would comment on the rights of freedom of association, freedom of conscious, freedom of self determination that is denied when one is forced to serve anyone.

            And no one answers the fact that there is no right to force me to serve you. Again a true right is derived from being a human, not form government. And a right is something that one can get freely without taking it from another. Which means no one has a right to make me serve them.

            No one has rebutted me on those, except one dude who just said there is no right to discrimination and I was wrong cause I was an idiot. Will anyone answer what about

          • a mere skeptic

            We disagree on the basis of what is and isn’t a right. I previously believed we only had a right to life (freedom from death), liberty (freedom from slavery), and the product of that liberty (property, freedom from theft). While I do agree that these are the biggest baseline rights that every human being has, I no longer hold the same life philosophy that perpetuated the entirety of my old political philosophy. I previously believed that these were the only rights that existed and that anything else was a violation of those rights. Eg, in forcing me to serve a homosexual, I would be violating the right of liberty, which is freedom from slavery.

            However, people are irrational assholes. Do people have the right to be ass holes? Absolutely. Do businesses still have the right to be irrational ass holes and discriminate? Under my old philosophy, yes. By extension of the individuals who created them, businesses had the same rights. In forcing a business’ hand you were forcing the individual’s hand.

            Under my current philosophy that changes daily, I am okay with this freedom from being forced to serve somebody as businesses must have consented to it if they wanted to apply for a business license. My old philosophy would argue this was coercion: in forcing individuals to apply for business licenses, you were forcing consent through blackmail.

            Currently, however, I look back on the civil rights movement and the sit ins. In an ideal, libertarian society, business owners would understand that discrimination was bad for business. What if they didn’t care though? What if we still had racial discrimination in the form of businesses refusing service to blacks? What if all businesses refused to serve blacks? Because we were born white, are we okay with sacrificing them? Previously I would have been. Liberty above all else. Nowadays… not so much. Those people, I believe, have the right to be treated like normal citizens to the extent that they should be free from being publicly humiliated for something out of their control. While I am all for idiotic people having liberty to do things that don’t harm others, I see this as a gateway for harming entire classes of people through discrimination.

            As result, I believe that there are instances when freedoms must be violated in order to ensure a better society. Race discrimination is one case. Homosexual discrimination is another case. Even though the Bible gives the OK for discriminating against homosexuals and even allows for their murder in Leviticus, I do not hold the Bible as anything more than that it exists. For that reason, combined with the slippery slope of allowing religions to discriminate for whatever they want, I have no problem limiting those rights while in a merchant capacity.

            Again, as I stated in the beginning, we have very different philosophical approaches to these issues. I followed you, maybe I’ll be able to give you more time in the future.

          • I fully understand your shift from one philosophy to another.

            All I will say is not sure how you came to only three rights as a ibertarian, when there is freedom of thought (which includes religion), association, self determination, life liberty, to protect yourself aka arms, the definition of rights is something government can not take away without due process, or it isn’t a right.

            A right is something you can freely attain without forcing another to provide that right without their consent. Therefore I have no right to a house, car, phone, PC, food, unless I can use my own labor to attain it.

            Sounds Good talk later.

          • NOT true, only protected classes. Though it should be a right to refuse anyone.

      • Arthur Morse

        Would you go to a vegan restaurant and demand they cook you a steak and if they didn’t turn around and sue them? It’s the same thing. It is stupid to try and force your beliefs on anyone, even a business owner.

        • a mere skeptic

          I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you. Vegan restaurants do not sell meat at all. If vegan restaurants served meat to some customers but not others on the basis that they are members of a particular class, there would be discrimination.

          Meanwhile, Christian bakeries do sell wedding cakes to heterosexuals. If the bakery were to not do wedding cakes at all instead of only denying them to homosexuals, then they would likely (at least, they should) be immune to suit on the basis of discrimination assuming they offer all of their other products to homosexuals.

          While there is the creative argument that homosexual wedding cakes are a particular product that businesses can choose not to specialize in, I am not persuaded. The only difference between a homosexual wedding cake and a heterosexual cake is the fact that the homosexual wedding cake will be used at a wedding with two homosexuals instead of two heterosexuals. As result, they are refusing to produce a cake they offer to all heterosexuals because of the fact that it is for homosexuals.

          • Wrong argument. The owner has the natural right to discriminate.period..no matter what government says.

      • Al Hartman

        It isn’t people being discriminated against. It is a particular event.

        In every case, the people who sued those Christian businesses had been served previously for other things. They were not turned away because they were Gay.

        It’s not discrimination because they are Gay.

        Their event was turned down, not them as customers.

        Get this right. Stop making up things that aren’t so.

        • a mere skeptic

          I appreciate your argument, but I must disagree with you.

          While it is true that they did turn down the event, that event was turned down because the parties involved were homosexuals. Had the event been involving heterosexuals, the services would have been rendered as normal. Although they “turned down the event and not the people,” they turned down the event because of the class in which the parties belonged.

          By definition as per Google, discrimination is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”

          In this case, the homosexuals present at the wedding were of different a class (or category of people) in that they were homosexuals and not heterosexuals. Had they been heterosexuals, they would not have been turned down. The direct cause of turning them down was because they were of a different class. That, by definition, is discrimination, which you do not have religious freedom to engage in if you are a merchant who opens his business up to the public.

          Although the Google definition includes examples of “race, age, or sex” and does not mention sexual orientation, that list is not exclusive to the three examples given. US Courts have commonly found discrimination on many other grounds including sexual orientation and disability.

          • Kevin Higginbotham

            Here is the problem. Just because they would not have been turned down had they been heterosexuals does not mean they were turned down BECAUSE they were homosexuals. There’s a difference. I would turn down heterosexuals that asked me to sin also. Turning down someone because they are a homosexual would be something like this: “Oh, you are gay? Get out of my store. I won’t sell you anything because I don’t agree with you.” That would be textbook discrimination. However, that’s not what’s happening here. Instead, if I were a business owner, I would treat everyone the same. “You are gay, you say? Doesn’t matter, you still have the right to shop freely in here! What’s that? You want me to do something I see as a sin? I’m sorry, nothing against you personally, but that would violate my religious beliefs. I’d be happy to help you in any other way, though.” Not discrimination because no one has been treated unfairly. They have been treated the same way I would expect to be treated and the same way I’d treat anyone else: Serve anyone unless they ask you to do something that would violate your religious beliefs. Not discrimination because no one has been prejudiced against, because as already stated, it has nothing to do with who is asking. It has to do with what they’re asking me to do, and if they ask me to do something I don’t see as a sin, such as sell them a bike, a birthday cake, mow their lawn, change their oil, or almost any other service in the world, I’d be glad to do it. Not discrimination because no group of people has been singled out, because as already mentioned, any person from any category or group who asked me to sin, even another Christian, would be treated the same way, politefully declined. Does that make sense? I have tried to present it respectfully and I am rather ashamed that there has been so much name calling by people on both sides here.

          • Actually learn your laws, the Federal Government has no protections for Gays, Very few states do and even less towns do. WRONG!! And their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction.

      • But as a libertarian you should be for a person’s right to discriminate (even if you find it repugnant), because People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.
        ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

        • a mere skeptic

          Private citizen, yes. Business open to the public, no. Why? See: Civil rights movement and racial discrimination. For the same reasons that a federal law was created to prevent discrimination of African Americans, that protection should be afforded to homosexuals. You are correct, as you said in previous responses to my comments a month ago, that no federal law currently exists for sexual orientation. I believe it should. I was previously incorrect in my assertions of a federal law existing for sexual orientation, as only states like CA and NY have adopted such laws.

          Also, as I am in constant reevaluation of my beliefs, I decided last week that I will no longer be identifying as a libertarian. While I do hold many of their tenants, our political system is inherently broken and I do not believe any one political philosophy is correct, nor would result in an ideal society if given free reign to implement its policies. For that reason, I will be registering as an independent. Thank you, people of Disqus, you’ve helped me realize that we agree on even less.

          • First, as one who is against government in your life (most call that a libertarian) you should not always say it is wrong because a law or the court says so, as you keep doing.

            Second, the Civil Rights Act DOES NOT protect sexual orientation, so to say laws of being a business open to the public do not apply to homosexuals.

            I know all about the Civil Rights Movement. The government had the discrimination laws, and NO government has the right to discriminate. Many businesses would have loved to serve blacks, but did not want to violate the law and their Klan enforcers.

            The Civil Rights law was spot on when it banned government discrimination, but over-reached when it banned discrimination by private individuals who owned stores open to the public. I believe there should be NO law protecting homosexuals or ANYONE from private individuals discriminating against anyone for any reason, because it violates the rights I mention below. Only the government should be banned from discrimination of anyone for any reason, NOT ALLOWED. Just so you know I am no racist.

            Under natural law there is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature (being born), not form government, that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.
            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            Again ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction. The good part of the Civil Rights Act.

          • a mere skeptic

            “Second, the Civil Rights Act DOES NOT protect sexual orientation, so to say laws of being a business open to the public do not apply to homosexuals.”

            It’s like you didn’t even read my comment.

            “First, as one who is against government in your life (most call that a libertarian) you should not always say it is wrong because a law or the court says so, as you keep doing.”

            Malum in se vs. malum prohibitum (wrong because it’s inherently wrong vs. wrong because it’s prohibited, respectively). I would argue that discrimination is malum in se. I know you guys think it’s malum prohibitum and think homosexuality is malum in se, but I hold the opposite. Because discrimination is inherently wrong, protection should be afforded for it. That’s my view. I know you oppose it. I agree to disagree.

            I don’t have time for any more. As I said in another comment, show up at a reasonable time and I’ll give you my full attention. This is one month late and I have a deadline I need to meet for real life, so forgive me for not giving your argument the objective rebuttal it deserves. Also, stop reviving my old comments, please.

          • I read you whole comment. I could say you haven’t read mine, since you haven’t addressed the rights I mentioned that are violated with forcing any man to serve another. There is no right to force another to serve you, because a right is something that you deserve for being born, that requires you to not take it without consent from another. That does not include making me serve you without my consent. The government is the only payer that can not discriminate. Just don’t respond until you have time. Good luck with your exam. And yes you are right you definitely not a libertarian….lol

            Also forcing another against his conscious, forcing him to use his labor (which he owns) and violating his rights to self determination, freedom of association is malum in se. Denying one your labor for any reason you deem objectionable is not malum in se.

            The government is to protect one’s natural rights and not discriminate against any of its citizens. It has no authority to violate your rights, any of them.

            Your calling discrimination malum in se, and then saying that allows the government to step in and force another falls short,because IF that is the case, then it can do that in my private life as well, because I could NOT privately sell my lawn mowers to my purple trisexual neighbors, but sell them to all the other neighbors black, white, straight and gay

          • a mere skeptic

            I even admitted to not reading yours. Out of guilt for not giving your approach consideration, I half-assed a quick response on another thread. This is my final post for the night. I really need to get back to studying. Goodnight.

            EDIT: I see your point on malum in se vs malum prohibitum, but I still, as I said, would argue the opposite. Your case is compelling, though, I’ll give you that.

          • Nite, I guess we are both guilty of not fully reading the others comments because we are busy and tired. Talk later.

          • PS, I think homosexuality is malun in se, but unlike oyu I do not think something being malum in see should bring in the government. Government has no right to stop homosexuals from anything others can pursue.

          • I think most discrimination is bad (there is good and bad), and therefore think discrimination is malum in se, not malum prohibitum, but I do not think that means government should come in. By following that logic that you propose, then the government could come in IF I refused to sell my dozen lawn mowers to my purple trisexual neighbor, when I sell them to all my other white, black, gay and straight neighbors.

            And While I do think homosexuality is malum in se; I don’t think that gives government the right to stop it. Again just because it is inherently wrong doesn’t mean government should come in IF it takes no rights from others. No one has the right to force me to serve you, because that requires you to force me to use my labor (which I own) to give you something. If you have to force me to serve you then it is no right.

  • haprocclumog

    I am even scared now to post this on my blog or FB page…..people nowadays are just as scared and paranoid knowing everything they say on any social media or even the phone is being watched, listened to, could be censored etc…….as well, thanks to the past 6 years of spewing hate and dividing the country and the world, and inciting anti-semitism, racism among many other things, rich against poor, blacks against whites,etc….there just isn’t any freedom anymore. America is not America anymore, just the way the libs like it and there dear leader.

    • Kathy

      Then you should be like me and Not give a damn about what others think or say about ya, I could care less what anybody has to say to me about what i have said,

      • John Gallion

        Exactly. Stand your ground and say what is True and let the chips fall where they may. These homofascists sound dangerous but at the end of the day we have a billion guns and they have a gaggle of leftist lawyers. At the end of the day, guns always win. And if enough of us stopped being afraid and stood our ground we could easily shut them up and shove their nazi dreams back into the dark closet from where it came. But Americans have become soft and cowardly. Not sure we are able to pull that off anymore.

        • K Mead

          John Gallion… Well stated sir!

        • Michelle

          Yes guns do win now don’t they….tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook children.

          • That’s a disgusting false equivalence to say that people defending them selves with guns against oppressors is even remotely related to the nutcase who stole guns and executed those children. Your comments sully the tragedy that happened to those poor children in Sandy Hook.

    • Norma Kinsey

      if all the good common sense ppl stay quiet then who will speak?

    • OHNONOTHIMAGAIN

      As long as people stay silent- We CANNOT affect change in America. If you stay afraid to post things like this video- then what happens when we lose ALL freedoms because of a minority like the LGBT community or the islamic community? Do you call or write your Senators/Legislators/Congressmen DEMANDING that they stand up to bullies like the LGBT’s and islamic people? I DO. The LGBT community represents about 3% of our population. And the other 97% need not stand by and allow them to take over America without a fight. Don’t go down scared to stand up for something.

      • Vesarret

        We represent 3% of America, but that doesn’t mean you should bring us down because we’re a minority. :/ We’re people too, and we also have a huge percentage of people who are NOT homosexual who will fight alongside us because it’s the right thing to do. We’re not trying to bully anybody, like really we’re not, we just want people to not be able to discriminate against us under religious or other circumstance. Bigotry under the guise of religion is still bigotry.

        • Kathy

          Then Vesarret, you 3% have got to step down and shut up. No one is discriminating against you. You are making demands that are unconscionable. You have every right as the rest of society and to push your sexual proclivities on the rest of us as has been happening over the last number of years is simply shameful. There is no bigotry, there is only a bunch of anti religious people gunning for those who continue to believe in God and have faith in His word.

          • ophelia

            Yes, because when people shut up things change magically. Give me a break. You should EXACTLY like the people who argue women ought to go to the bathroom to nurse babies or any time someone wants a right you deem they don’t deserve. It is not unconscionable to want to be treated like everyone else. What is unconscionable is that you think there is a good excuse to treat any human being any differently than any other human being.

            I believe in God, I am straight. God teaches me not to judge, to love, to give freely of my time, money& energy. NO ONE has ever been able to infringe on ANY of that…ever. You know what Jesus NEVER said – pass laws that force people to comply with my teachings. He also never said anything about gay people…ever. He didn’t. SO if it were terribly important for any Christian to make sure gays are kept in check, I would’ve thought he might have mentioned it. Instead he ONLY speaks of love, kindness & generosity. And if I make a cake for a gay friend for a wedding, when I get to the pearly gates i am pretty sure that IF it were a sin, it will pale in comparison for every person I failed to feed, for every child I failed to put shoes in on & the million other ways i fail to live Christ like every single day. I do not think I’ll be called to task over baked goods i made before being called to task over the food I failed to make. Please quit making Christians look bad by saying those that support civil rights aren’t Christian. You do NOT speak for Christians as a group & those of us supporting anti-discrimination are not anti-religious. We are against using religion to disguise personal bigotry. I have not yet seen anything biblical that can explain ever denying anyone service. Perhaps you have some to quote for me to set me straight.

          • First Cathy is wrong, the minority does NOT have to shut up. We are a nation against tyranny from the majority and tyranny of from minority,

            Second, If you follow the Christian God, he teaches you to love all, not condemn them, but to condemn their sin. Jesus said do not condemn the person, but told the person to go and sin no more.

            Third, You are right Jesus did NOT say pass laws that force people to comply with my teachings. He also did not say for people to pass laws r force people to go against their conscious when they believe something is sin and wish not to participate in it.

            Fourth, The Constitution protects freedom of conscious and freedom of association, so don’t force people to do things they find morally objectionable, like participating in something they believe God says is sin.

          • First Cathy, the minority does NOT have to shut up. We are a nation against tyranny from the majority and tyranny of from minority. We should not push gays around AND gays should not push us around.

        • Montanagirl1

          Bigotry under the guise of freedom is still bigotry. Why don’t the radical LGBTers quit bullying those that will never agree with them? It’s almost like a power play-Gays intentionally targeting Christian establishments to bring them down. That in my book is bigotry.

        • Vesserat, what you miss is people have the freedom of association protected by the US Constitution. Rather we find it appalling or not, they have this right. SO yes you are bullying them by forcing them to do business with you. And why would you want someone who feels that way about you to be a part of your most precious memory. Even if you argue the baker is not a part of it (which he is by providing a cake), the photographer, caterer, musicians and others would be a part.

      • ophelia

        Do you know the USA is a Constitutional Republic set up specifically as such in order to ensure that the majority is not able to abuse power and oppress the minority. Our forefathers did not want a direct Democracy for this very reason. Because misogyny, bigotry, and other prejudices can set people up to be abused, maligned, and marginalized by the larger group just simply because the larger group seems to get confused & begins to think “majority rules”. That is NOT our governmental system & if you have thought it was, you need to reeducate yourself on how the system was designed from the very start.

        You are not loosing freedoms just because someone else gains them. MANY men made these same arguments when women got the right to vote, when women started working, etc, etc.

        • Ophelia, you are right about this nation was set up to prevent the majority from abusing the minority, but it is also set up to not allow the minority to abuse the majority either.

          I think saying that men used these same arguments to oppress women is a strawman argument. Like you said men never lost rights for women to gain them. BUT, the difference here is the US Constitution’s First Amendment protects a person’s natural rights to freedom of speech, of religion, of conscious, of association. To make a person enter into business with another against their will takes that freedom away. There is no freedom to force another to serve you, even if you offer them money.

          • Privately people can discriminate all they want, ONLY the government can NOT discriminate.

  • Dave Goush

    you know I live with the philosophy that everyone should be able to live their lies anyway they want and to believe in whatever God or entity they choose to. I have no problems with Gay marriage for instance as it falls under the category of “Live and be happy”. But when the far let libs start telling me what I cannot object to in business then we have a problem. For example If I owned a T-shirt company and I got a white supremacy group wanting me to say print them 10,000 shirts with swastikas on them saying “heil Hitler’ I would be offended and even though I could make a good amount of money from it I could not make them for them and would have to refer that business to another shop. I certainly do not want them suing me for refusing them business.

    • jules2u

      Sadly this is exactly what this has opened the door to, forcing businesses to do things against their better judgment.

      • a mere skeptic

        I’d rather open that door than open the door returning to “separate but equal.”

        • That was government discrimination, and businesses obeyed, This is private discrimination which as a libertarian you should be ofr them having that right, even if you find it repugnant.

    • jamiemcg

      Hold on…are you really comparing a wedding cake where the only thing that’s different is maybe…I don’t know, the person you’re selling it to, to 10,000 “heil Hitler” shirts? How is making a cake and selling it to a gay couple, endorsing gay marriage? Would you go and blame the supermarket that sold cheetos to Jeffrey Dahmer and accuse them of supporting what he did? It’s a cake. Flour, eggs, vanilla…no one is asking a baker to write on a cake “We, the Super Catholic Bakery, Support all things GAY!” It’s a cake. Usually with no writing on it because wedding cakes don’t have that – if they have any taste at all.

  • Debbie Vance

    YES!! You expressed EXACTLY what I’ve been trying to articulate but couldn’t. And that’s how tough this topic is, because usually I can express myself just fine. THANK YOU! I’m reposting this.

  • Darla McGahan

    you are absolutely correct in what you are saying! Thank you.

  • William Stevens

    You have it all correct 100% but it won’t make a bit of difference for a Liberal Gay who just plain refuses to believe any other line of thought. The equal right “Freedom of Choice” is being destroyed by the gay crowd and their eagerness to erase all forms of sin regarding their own personal action and development.

  • Freedomrequiresresponsibility

    Honestly, both sides of the argument are supporting hatred, but only one side is supporting freedom as well………

    • GlockG22shoots40s

      Your right…. the freedom of the business owner is totally being squashed by the leftist liberal media outcry.

  • hope rosary

    Keep putting out storys like this yall!!! I was beginning to think yall were all about drama and silly untru crap… dont go back to theories keepnspeakimg thentruth like this cause it make soul love gay shine out of the dark ness of ultra annoying liberals who make the ultraannoying concervatives stongly dislikenus… I knew all along that theis wasnt aboutnhate… now proove it bay makeing thisn more well known and by helping us strik down the strio type the ultra liberals have putn upon us that makes us look evil… and lust full… theres a difference between the lust community of homosexuality who hate and put people in the closets they themselves came out of includin soul lovering gays… similar to the heterosexualpultonic DAVID AND JOHNATHAN IN THE BIBLE… and as I justnsaid soul loveing gays some or most who abstain even… but who is any one to judgenthat… what are yall gon na come into me and my partners bed room… caus I can assure you that nothing is going on there yall we sleep and watch tv and facebook and txt and talk on thenphome with out moms and dads and broters and sister s just like yall… we are no different just not the same and neither are our marriage s for no we cant procreat as opposite sex couples do but we can adopt and and adopt frozen embryos and have adoptions of children who would have been aborted… sure yaeh opposite sex couples can do the same but onlu after they have exausted other options usually… fornthey can make theyrenown babys yall right after theybare marred especially… noe where dose thatnlead foster kids and kids whonneed parents… this isnwhatn God has lead mento be live our porpuse is yall!!! Please under stand we are not here to desteoynthenhuman race or nuclear familys we are here to fill a desparet need… for God didnt stop speaking to the world withnthe word amen… hes still speaking existance into existance and doing a newnthing… and that new thing is to love forn God is love and Jesusncommanded us to love sonHenwas telling usnto God… and to God our neighbors as our selves… blessed be yall ifnyou want to talk tonme my name is hope rosary on Facebook loves!!!

    • hope rosary

      Im sorry if that was hard. To read but my phones all jacked up yall lol blessed be #abenanermin!!!

  • Horace Gunn

    Never thought I’d see the day when rectal prolapse trumped Christianity.

  • a mere skeptic

    Congratulations, the most openly oppressive religion in the world refuses to serve homosexuals. Glad you want to be in the same camp as them, Christians, and continue to exclude people. Great way to bring people to Jesus.

    • Ray Butler

      Is that the only response your feeble mind can concoct just because you can’t credibly justify the hateful, vindictive, intolerant, hypocritical, fascist and often violent actions of the faggoteer mafia???
      “Same CAMP”??? Go ahead, moron – justify why muslims enjoy freedom of religion, but why Americans can’t.
      This is a good time for you to shut your suckhole before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

  • Cedric Ian Anthony

    well said.

  • William Paul Jones

    I highly doubt the rainbow bus will be fueled for a roadtrip to dearborn michigan anytime soon.

    • Joe Tokoph

      They dont want them there anyway. Nobody wants a bunch of fruit loops running around in tutu’s.
      Micheal Sams comes to mind.

  • WanderingStray

    Note should be made of the commentators remark about political correctness being the cultural Marxism of our time. It is destroying individual freedom.

    • a mere skeptic

      The illegality of discrimination is not dispositive of the destruction of individual freedom nor the rise of “cultural Marxism.” You have plenty of freedoms, however you suspend those freedoms when you open up your business to the public.

      For the same reason a business cannot refuse service because of somebody’s race or gender, Christian businesses cannot refuse service because of somebody’s sexual orientation. So what if somebody believes that it is morally wrong to serve blacks? The law doesn’t care. If you are a business that opens up and serves the public at large, you cannot discriminate.

  • Jim McCormack

    Very educational . ” Cultural Marxism ” aptly describes the situation we’re in. forcing people to engage in any activity beyind their own conscience is mental rape.

  • Jim

    Ok, gay couples, do you really want a cake made by someone who disagrees with you? Gays, stop being dictators

  • Shirley Crawford

    Some business have signs that say : WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!!! anyone…. yes, even straight folks. 🙂

  • mrb

    It the suing part of the customer to make a business commit or go out of business or ruin the owner financial. I believe that all people should have freedom of choices and not be destroyed for that choice if someone else does not like it.

  • Lesley Hughes

    Get married…change your sex…be happy..leave everyone else alone 🙂

  • Eileen Truman

    I just love this…. I don’t care one way or the other about gay marriage, but I do care about our freedoms being taken away one freedom at a time.

    • a mere skeptic

      Nowhere are we guaranteed the freedom to discriminate in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You’re more than welcome to practice your religion, you just can’t use that as an excuse to discriminate against others.

  • Volitans

    Crowder nailed it with the statement: businesses have the right to “choose their level of engagement” with the service requested by the prospective client. If my wife who is a photographer was asked to cover a “gay wedding” in which the “bride” and “groom” were attired in jock straps, she would decline and she would have every right to do so.

  • Robert G Mitchell

    There’s double standards and THEN there’s REALLY the double standards that the “politically correct ” Leftist Libitards enjoy!
    If the proverbial “shoe ” was on the other foot their outrage would be overwhelming!
    These types of injustices are exactly the thing that should enrage and motivate the voting public to right these GLARING wrongs!!!

  • Jennifer Lynne Salins

    This is my issue….the point of owning a business is to (hopefully) be doing something you love (or at least like a lot) and make a profit off of it. If you start alienating a particular segment of potential clients, then it goes from being an entrepreneur to making a religious or political stance. Now if you’re religious, that plays into your every day life decisions, and so there is no boundary between how you run your business and how you live your life. Typically, your religious beliefs don’t stop at the door. However, if we have separation of church and state, then why would we allow businesses to “go against their beliefs” and serve a customer who has a different lifestyle than them? And fundamentally, how is that even good for their business? If I had a bakery, and I refused all fat people (I cannot in good conscience sell you a cake, knowing that you are unhealthy), or people with missing teeth (I cannot in good conscience sell you a cake, knowing that the sugar is so bad for remaining teeth), or so on, can I really justify that with the idea that selling to them goes against my beliefs? If your beliefs are so strong, then why even go into business to begin with?

    • Volitans

      In answer to your last questions, it’s because leftists and in this case, the gay movement, are not satisfied just to win an issue. They want to force those who do not agree to submit to their will.

    • Mamacita

      Nobody is saying this is the way to make the best financial decision. It’s so much bigger than money. Secondly, separation of church and state applies to government entities, not private businesses.

    • jules2u

      Are the items you mention part of your religious beliefs? You are talking about the separation of church and state, but since when was a private business part of that “state”, it is NOT, it is a private business. What you are basically saying if an extremely drunk person came into your shop, and ordered you to make something outrageous, you would be obligated to make the item regardless how outlandish it may be

      • Jennifer Lynne Salins

        I know that the separation of church and state does not apply to private business, but the idea is a widely held belief among the general populace, and therefore a lot of people get upset about people who have strong opinions. I do not understand your question about the items I mention being part of a religious belief…please explain further and I will respond. For an extremely drunk person to come in and order something outrageous, well that depends. If I were to be the owner of a cake shop, and a drunk person walked in and was pretty laid back, even if they ordered something outrageous, I’d probably make it if it was within my capabilities. Business sense says to satisfy the customer if it is within my power and best interest to do so. Now if their drunkenness is causing them to act erratically or offensively to the point where I fear they are dangerous or bothering other patrons, then that would be the point where I would refuse to serve them. In that case, it has more to do with being a disturbance and less to do with their alcohol intake.

  • Donald

    If a business is uncomfortable serving someone, then they should not be forced to do so. It is not just a matter of freedom of religion, but you as an individual have rights as well. Businesses can and do turn down customers for many reasons that have nothing to do with race, creed, color, gender or sexual preference. How about the guy/gal is hard to work with or they are a deadbeat. I had a business of my own and I did cut off customers that were like that.

    • People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

      ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

  • Joyce Riebe

    Why is it when only Christians are not allowed to practicwe their religon in the open anymore? Schools, business, are all turned away from their right to practice what they believe. Yet businesses HAVE to make exceptions for, say, the 5 times daily Muslims have to pray.

  • william C

    Leftists in this country are hypocrites

  • Politicians and there partners, the media, ramp this crap up for one reason,…..Homosexual votes.
    These two criminal elements in America are a cancer, but the all mighty votes means much more than the ‘Bill of Rights’ , or the ‘constitution’
    They also know the attention span of their voters is on a down hill slope.

  • MYKL7J7

    WOULD THEY REALLY EAT A CAKE THAT THEY FORCED SOMEONE TO BAKE?WHO KNOWS WHAT IS IN IT.

  • huberfarm

    ok, call me politically incorrect but, aren’t there plenty of specialty or gay owned bakeries and/or shops to cater to this specialty item? I mean – I am short. 4’11 to be exact. I wouldn’t shop in a Big & Tall store nor would I expect them to carry items that fit me because they’re in business nor sue them for discrimination against short people. Likewise, I follow a low carb diet and many Ciliacs must have gluten free foods. Do I or they have the right to DEMAND that each and every restaurant or grocery carry a menu and/or inventory that meet our needs or they have to go out of business? It’s ridiculous. This isn’t about homophobia, religious beliefs, or discrimination. This is about business…. period. And a platform for liberals to make a hissy fit display over to try to further their agenda.

    • Guest

      You are so wrong and if no one agrees with you they are wrong!? No shoes, no shirt, NO SERVICE how about that one!!!!

    • GZeus

      That’s not how works. Bakers are not being asked to sell new products. Gay wedding cakes are the exact same as straight wedding cakes. Nowadays couples are not even using the bride/groom figurines for the top, instead opting for bows, flowers or other decorations for the top of cake.

      Your other examples don’t apply. Big and Tall stores sell items that fit big and tall people but you can go in and buy what they sell no matter what. A store isn’t required to add new products but they do have to sell what they ALREADY sell to whoever wants to buy it.

      • truly_foolish

        You should read what you just said and apply it to the people you think deserve special cakes.

        • GZeus

          Cakes for gay weddings are exactly the same as cake for straight weddings. They aren’t special. Can you pick out the “special gay wedding cake” in this photo?

          Also, a good use of “special” would be religionists demanding a “special right” to be free to break any law they don’t agree with. Guess what buddy. When you apply for a business license you agree to obey all local and state laws, even if you don’t particularly like the law. Some don’t like making aisles wide for wheelchair access because you lose floor space for merchandise. Too bad. It’s the law. Don’t want to follow business law and ordinance? You have a choice. Pay fine for breaking law. Or don’t apply for business license in first place. Or open a members only baked goods club. Or even better open the business in a country that allows discrimination. Uganda perhaps?

          • a mere skeptic

            They will never understand.

          • Actually learn your laws, the Federal Government has no protections for Gays, Very few states do and even less towns do. WRONG!! And their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

        • jamiemcg

          How are these cakes special? Are gay wedding cakes covered in more glitter? Is it special to make a cake for an interracial wedding? Or should bakers be able to deny those as well if it’s against their religion?

          • Yes they should. There their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.
            People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

            ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

      • Doesn’t matter. Their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

        People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

        ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

    • jamiemcg

      Do you know where the highest concentration of gay families live? Mississippi. That’s right. The next 19 states on the list are almost all red states. Where no, there are not “Specialty gay bake shops.” And as GZeus said – how is a gay wedding cake different from a straight wedding cake? I didn’t even have groom & groom cake toppers on ours. Just a nice design and a damn good cake, from a baker who gladly wasn’t a bigot. So tell me – Should interracial couples have to go to a specialty bakery too? Because it was people like you, not too long ago – who used the same exact arguments to defend their bigotry and stop those from happening as well.

      • Yes they have that right. And their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.

        People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

        ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction

  • Vysta Owen

    Well I guess LIBERALS must be afraid of Muslims, they are not complaining and crying, too funny.

  • D_B_B

    You are right on. It is not about Civil Rights anymore…it is ALL about Religious Freedom.

    • zion939

      It is not a “right” to get your wedding cake from whomever you wish. No one is ENTITLED to the labors of another person.

      • icandyart

        Does that mean a business owner can refuse service to someone of color? Bigotry is wrong and not welcome in America.

  • Sharon Millhouse Anderson

    any business has the right to refuse service….I don’t have to agree with everyone on their views and you should not force them on me either…

    • Wiggle D

      But do note that if you refuse service, you should not go crawling to anyone should you starve.

  • allen329

    Now…what if Kanye West came in and wanted a wedding cake, which was Kim’s second..divorce is a sin. I have yet to hear of a couple being turned away for being on their second, third, fifteenth wedding… So yes, when ONE sin is being selected by these “Christians”, it is discrimination.

  • Lukas

    To say that Muslims denying homosexuals certain services means that Christians should be able to is awful logic as a believer. Really? You’re using Islam to justify your actions? Way to make an impact! Also, this is more than a bit racist…

  • Wiggle D

    If people don’t want your money, let them starve. There will be plenty other businesses who shall gladly take it as long as you aren’t there to cause trouble.

  • Joe Tokoph

    Id be out of business.
    What happened to no shirts no shoes no service. Damn people are racists against shirts and shoes. We should have stopped them there because now they moved on to gays.
    All ya gotta do is be rude, they’ll leave. Fags suck ass 🙂

  • Robert Kurz

    Were not against gays were against the sin , your not going to change our minds to signify if your right or not? Its a sin sin sin and your going to burn in hell for the sin

    • Wiggle D

      “Judge and be judged”

      • Ed Tyler

        Define to judge?

      • Robert Kurz

        What is right is right not what ‘you” think is right even use your mind if you have one to figure out man “and” woman

      • Robert Kurz

        And also ; do you even read the bible i.e. the word of God?

        • Wiggle D

          That isn’t the word of God. That is the word of Man twisted to take power over things he has no claim to. If you ever operated a printing press, you know that it is an easy thing to do.

          • Robert Kurz

            Bible is basic instructions before leaving earth. Have you ever read the bible and if you havent have you ever read a fictional book ? and if you have then what keeps you from reading what you think is fictional? There is so much prophecy that has been written and come to pass as life itself now. Read it so at least you will be warned.

          • Wiggle D

            First it’s the “will of god” and now it’s “basic instructions before leaving the earth”. Talk about making sh!t up as you go.

          • Robert Kurz

            B,I,B,L,E, got it ? Its not making anything up its accepting it as I go ! Praise to the ever living God. Jesus

          • Wiggle D

            Wrong again, Bible is an adaptation of the greek word τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía. Meaning BOOK.

          • Kevin Higginbotham

            I am sorry, but the Bible is the Word of God. You may choose to disagree with it, or deny it, or disbelieve it, or reject it, but that doesn’t change what it is. Sure, it’s easy to operate a printing press and make up your own stuff as you go along. But boy, it sure is hard to do that and just so happen to be 100% dead on with every prophecy that’s written, some of them centuries before they came true, to come up with a book that was completely correct on matters of science before science even believed them (such as the earth being round), to offer an explanation of how and why we got here that fits with all the physical evidence scientists are finding, and to come up with a book that has changed thousands of lives, and to come up with the only book who reveals a God of infinite love, grace, mercy and salvation, and to come up with a book that even though millions through the years have fought it, still exists and still does what it always has done: convicted sinners, saved souls, changed lives, given peace and joy and salvation. Sure, it takes faith to believe the Bible is the Word of God. But it also takes quite a bit of faith to believe it’s not . . .

          • Wiggle D

            It’s called ‘cold reading’. You make something vague enough, and people will put whatever meaning they think fits. And btw, the church condemned all sciences that didn’t fit their agenda. Even the earth being mother-fing round at first.

  • Lisa Muzic

    I applaud your bravery! Nice story. One could definitely feel the uneasiness of the shop owners when you asked for the cake. Why are Christians being persecuted for the same thing Muslims are allowed to do every day?

    • jules2u

      Because people who would sue a Christian seem to support the same rights in other religious beliefs.

  • Joe Tokoph

    If you dont believe in God the next best thing is a bung hole. Man how we dont look at history. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for detestable things.

    Ezekiel 16:49-50
    declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her
    daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the
    poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable
    things before me…” The Hebrew word translated “detestable” refers to
    something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an “abomination.” Similarly, Jude 7 declares, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.”
    So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities
    of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason
    for the destruction of the cities.

    Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of
    homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitable. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being
    inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than
    homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and
    all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point.
    While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins,
    homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities,
    completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day,
    the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate
    wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God
    feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.

    If you dont believe the bible, the rest is a mute point. Enjoy the dingle berries.

    • Wiggle D

      There are suggested locations, but there is no solid proof those places truly existed.

      • jules2u

        Suggested locations?

        • Wiggle D

          On the maps.

  • jagarland

    America was built on an open market place. A business that meets the needs of the public the best earns the most money and survives. People should choose the business that caters to their needs not expect a business to change their service just because you don’t like what they offer. You can’t go to McDonalds and sue them because they do not serve a steak and baked potato. Nor could you go to Golden Corral and sue to get Big Mac.

    • jules2u

      But could you sue them or ruin their business if they refused to cater a wedding? After all they do large orders for other events.

    • Wiggle D

      Why are you comparing dishes to lifestyles?

  • Awesome..couldn’t agree more!!!

  • Davey Dunn

    I have the right to say Hell no piss on obamas quran pig book and his people that are doing this

  • passn8ldy

    It boils down to this- the business is OWNED by someone and this business is totally paid for out of the pockets of the owners – no government assistance – they have the RIGHT to chose their level of engagement in any activity. WHERE ARE OUR RIGHTS?!!!! We have no problem with others living as they want – but to MAKE us participate in their lifestyle of WRONG!!! There are plenty of other businesses who will take care of you – no problem. So – your views – your lifestyle – your way of life should be protected but our views, lifestyles and way of life are not!!! WHAT’S RIGHT ABOUT THAT?!!!!!!

  • Smokey

    Yet moslems will get a pass based upon THEIR religion beliefs. Sharia law?

    • Dee Lee

      Solo that’s how u wanna see oboma or u just like niggas in lipstick???

  • I am over 60 and I grew up seeing signs everywhere that said “We have the right to refuse service to anyone”. Covers all the bases I think. No need to explain why, “just because” is a good enough reason. Sometimes, people pay me to paint a picture for them. If I do not want to paint it for them, I do not have to tell them why. And I wish they would try to sue me, or the state.
    I am sure that with the drop in revenue, that bakery is regretting the publicity. Fortunately, I do not ask my clients for their resumes. Maybe the baker did not want the job because the demands of the customer were too “flamboyant” or difficult to create, but because the cistomer was gay, they used that as the reason to get some of their own publicity.

  • lucky1

    NEVER trust a liberal!

  • kikz2

    bakeries are not infrastructure. if the gay community is soooo under served by wedding cake bakeries, i suggest….. THEY OPEN THEIR OWN!

  • Joe Tokoph

    You all just keep thinking there is no God. If your wrong, you just made the biggest mistake of your existence.

    Just a small passage from Hosea 4

    6. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected
    knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me:
    seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy
    children.

    7. As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.

    8. They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.

    9. And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings.

    10. For they shall eat, and not have enough: they shall commit whoredom, and
    shall not increase: because they have left off to take heed to the LORD.

    11. Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.

    • a mere skeptic

      I was a Christian for a while because of Pascal’s Wager, which you just described. Then I did some thinking and decided not to commit philosophical suicide and will take my chances.

  • Dan McGuckin

    How about we forget about religion all together and the world is better off.

  • Varian Wrynn

    I see an amazing business opportunity . . . open a chain of bakeries called “We bake any cake for any one.” Screw the intolerance – get paid!!!

  • Guy Cain
  • Ron Martin

    A good ole civil war would cure the problem

  • Barbara Schenk

    Thank you for keeping it simple for those that still dont get it and dont realize our rights are being chiseled away.

  • neb67rsb

    This has NOTHING to do with Hate and Love. This is about one person’s freedoms TRUMPING another person’s freedoms. We are always attacked when we express our opposing views whether we do so eloquently and articulately or not. It is about SILENCING the conservative views and allowing chaos to run amok.

  • Taminater

    You’re preaching to the choir bro

  • Arthur Morse

    Liberals are the biggest hypocrits in the world.

  • Donald Chase

    When less than 4% of the population (Gays) dictates how 96% live there is something very wrong! It becomes even more difficult for people like me that grew up in a relatively strict religious household and has fought against prejudices that have been ingrained into me all my formative years to accept and not revert to the hate, nasty name calling and divisiveness of those years when this kind of crap continues to be forced on us. Do not get me wrong I dislike radicals of any kind be it religious, lifestyle or race. I do not like the constant sexually based commercials on TV or the depiction of sexual situations of any kind on broadcast TV. Paid services that can be blocked are one thing but to constantly explain to small children what they are talking about or why those two men or women are kissing is a real problem to do it without expressing old ingrained feelings. At 68 years old and having fought against those feelings and prejudices most of my life people like these radicals that constantly take everything out of context and turn it in to something it isn’t and in fact forcing the need for this kind of law in the first place make it really hard to keep from doing exactly what they want and becoming just like them radical, divisive and hateful!

    • grendal113

      this isn’t about gays this is about the public. would it be acceptable to refuse handicapped people? blacks? If you aren’t smart enough to refuse service with out giving away the reason is because you have judged someone, then you deserve to be sued out of business you are obviously not smart enough.

      • Taffy

        This isn’t about gays or the public. It’s about militant leftists who are intolerant and hateful towards Christians or anyone who doesn’t espouse their point of view.

        • grendal113

          Um it is Christians looking for a legal excuse to judge. Which I believe violates their belief. But, then I expect that.

  • grendal113

    This is silly if you don’t want to serve the public get rid of your permit to do business. If you can’t refuse service without stating it is for religious or bigoted reasons you deserve to be put out of business.

  • cowboyken

    That’s the point Peter there are laws but if your Christian then they will not be followed because you have no rights. The PC culture seams to think the laws are only for them to use and government has feed into the thinking.

  • After_The_Fall

    I would not expect a demon to call out the Devil. There is a pecking order and Islam sits in the highest chair. All other evil, such as the Democrat Party, LGBT, defenders of unborn murder, etc, shows their belly to Islam. There are dominant outlaw motorcycle clubs and dominant Mafia families and they don’t rock those boats. LGBT knows it’s place too.

  • Presley McFarrin

    I agree with you. – BRAVO for the states that have made laws to RE-GUARANTEE our freedom of religion. – I do not tell other people that they have to participate in MY religious beliefs. – BUT I WILL NOT ALLOW other people to tell me that I have to participate in activities that are contrary to my beliefs.

  • 945call

    Who would force a black baker to make a KKK cake for the hooded ones up in Skokie?

  • JW

    POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is a MONSTER destroying the American way of life ! Gays have the same rights as everyone else ! If a company doesn’t want their business ,then go some where else who wants your business no big deal ! This MONSTER OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL DESTROY OUR AMERICA FOR EVER !! THEIR SHOULD NOT BE SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR ANYONE .WE HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS !!

  • Keith W. Brown

    Crowder is absolutely right!

    • Guest

      ★★★★ 86$ PER HOUℛ@ai15:

      Going Here you
      Can Find Out,,

      ►►►►► https://DailyWorkOnline.com/gets/position

      ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚

  • Christians are one of the few groups of people that care enough about
    gay people to actually tell them the truth. i.e Homosexuality is sin.
    1 Corinthians 6:9

    “Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom
    of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who
    worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice
    homosexuality,”

  • Keatonbuster

    Freedom is having the right to say “no, I don’t want to.” How difficult is that to grasp?

  • jm

    The division of the Christian religion has destroyed itself. I can assure you that the reason some denominations have embraced the lbgt was solely a monetary gains decision. I do not care what others do in their own personal life but I will not allow anyone into my space that chooses to tell me how I am to think or live. Whores of the dollar will. That is what they do, anything for money. Try to sue one of these musslime bakeries, go ahead and try. You will not win because they hold together in their beliefs and it will fit the religious freedom law. Had all christian denominations held together their belief system would have held together under the religious freedom law as well but now it never will due to the division they themselves created. They have removed any and all absolutes of their own system. The governments in the majority of the world are sick and tired of all the rights seekers reeking havoc in their societies ,They will use any means possible to put an end to it, even if it means using the tools of isslime to do it. It is absolute fact that isslime will put and end to lbgt, religious freedom, curtail women’s rights, speech rights, literature rights, and all other rights that do not fit those absolute ideals. Police will be replaced by religious police and they will be judge and jury on the spot. Our own government will and is using the societal self destructing division to their own benefit and will allow by what ever means any system to take over the people to bring about any stabilization and order of the people. They of course will be exempt as will the corporate wheels and the high and mighty rich because they are the ones that will assist in the implementation of the controlling force. Our society is becoming the walking dead, your throat is already cut but you just don’t know it.

  • Sonni15

    You are right… All of our freedoms are being tramplef on by liberal idiots…. Who want to appease the wrong people!

  • huberfarm

    Guest – “No shirt – no shoes – no service” is about sanitation and hardly a viable comparison. It also does not have anything to do with not serving a particular group as anyone without shoes and a shirt on would not be served, regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. This whole thing is STUPID and just something to make a big deal about. Having rights and freedom works BOTH ways; not just for the ones who want to create issues where there are none.

  • huberfarm

    GZeus – Agreed; and in truth, I am a Christian and if I could bake a decent cake, I would have no aversion to baking one for a gay couple if they asked as IT’S A CAKE. I realize that it goes deeper in that protesters are complaining that a certain group are being denied service bc of their sexual orientation – and they are. However, using your example – a traditional wedding cake would not (1) have names on it indicating the couple was gay or hetero, and (2) not have two males or two females on top unless the couple were purposely advertising their orientation (which is, of course, their right BUT, it does not require the baker to provide such if it is not in their list of services). If a bakery does bake wedding cakes for alternative couples and refuses to bake one for a particular couple then service is being denied for something that they provide other customers. If they do NOT bake and design alternative cakes then they have not discriminated, based on your example (which I agree with). If you want something different, you go to a specialty shop. If you want a standard, traditional wedding cake, then I doubt that there would even be an issue if the “gay ” were not stressed.

  • Starfire Wolf

    Where exactly are they forcing christians to have abortions?

  • JAS

    F%$K the donkey or, scratch my head, f&%K the elephant. Oh I mean, damned it’s socialism and both parties are allowing it to happen. But then again the blue guys surely want that right?

  • Mike Neal

    OMG!!! He hit this right on the head!! I’m all for the right to be who you want, love who you want, etc….But just because a person, business, or group doesn’t agree with what you do (LGBT specifically), how you live your life and whom you live it with, doesn’t make them a bigot in anyway. If they are no threat to you and your political agenda why bother them? Why waste your time and energy to point out, boycott etc, that person or entity? If my child was gay, lesbian, bi or trans, I wouldn’t love them any less. As long as that person or entity isn’t perpetuating or breeding hatred, intolerance, bigotry prejudice or racism. Me personally, I don’t volunteer my beliefs until I am asked. I keep my thoughts and opinions to myself. But because a business owner CHOOSEs to not make an LGBT wedding cake or cater an LBGT wedding, you want to put boycott them, ridicule them publicly and put them out of business? Every person in this country has a right to think what they want, believe what they want, be who and what they want to be. NOBODY has the right to persecute ANYONE for believing what they believe whether it be based on religion or personal preference or personal experience. If a person or business is no harm or threat to you and don’t believe as you do, just leave them alone. As long as that person or entity is not bothering you, threatening you or your way of life. You as much right to live your life the way you see fit as they or anyone else does. And because someone doesn’t believe in your lifestyle, they can CHOOSE not to be involved in it in anyway. That is their right! MY right!! It’s YOUR right!!That right by the LAW of the United States….it’s right by all that IS right!! So, because someone CHOOSES (again their right)! I have long felt this way, and sometimes have a hard time relating it to racism as some would have it be done. Being a black man in America, I have seen my fair share of racism. People believe what they want to believe…whether it was taught at home or friends or wherever. They are influenced and taught by their surroundings. But where I see the difference is here…the fight against racism has taken hundreds of years and is still ongoing. We live with it everyday. It took 50 years (give or take) to be able to show the world when someone was being racist. there are still “towns” in America that I can’t be in “after dark”. Unfortunately, until those towns die out, they won’t change. The LGBT Coalition, um people…party?(I don’t know what to call them), seem to want to change things over night…it’s a generational thing. Just because you boycott someone and put them out of business doesn’t make them hate you ANY less or MAKE them believe as you do ANY more. Until being gay, lesbian, bi or transsexual is as common in every part of the country as being black, chinese, mexican, korean or martian (a little humor so I don’t take myself to seriously), it’s gonna be a fight. But there is a right way to fight and a wrong way to fight. And in some instances, some ways or tactics, I personally believe that the LBGT has done the very same thing to people that they themselves preach for…tolerance. BUT, it goes both ways….

    If I have offended anyone with my rant, I don’t apologize. Hopefully, those that take offense will re-read this and truly understand what I meant by the words that I wrote. Think about things from a different perspective and maybe you’ll understand…:-). Have a great day, smile, take care of each other, and do for others…:-)

  • moehammy

    Muslims will never be attacked by the leftwing…..and we all know why don’t we?

  • jim

    why do people care what other people need or want to have in life everybody deserve to live to be happy. I’ m married to my wife I have two kids, I have enough problems why worry about if someone with the same sex is married. IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH IT, LET THEM SOLVE IT.

  • willowglen

    If I was a baker, I would bake a cake and decorate it to whatever the customer wants. A dollar is a dollar no matter who pays me,and I would be in the business to make money. To refuse a customer would be taking money out of my pocket.

    • Some people answer to a higher authority than the dollar.

      • willowglen

        Unfortunately,a higher authority does not pay my bills or put food in my mouth. It takes money to live.

        • Actually many believe your bills are paid by the higher authority allowing you to prosper with that job. And they put their devotion to god before money or their needs. And are willing to lose some (or all) money to honor God.

  • backell

    Except that they’re not being asked to partake in activities. They’re being asked to bake a cake, which they do for a living.

    The Civil Rights Act expressly says that you can’t discriminate based on religion. This legislation is saying that you CAN deny service based on whether someone passes your religious test. It’s blatantly against the law.

  • jamiemcg

    Wonder how this dude would feel if a bakery refused to make a cake for an interracial wedding because their religion didn’t believe in it?

  • Rebecca Smith

    There is no way that anyone can convince any of these bone headed democrats/liberals/progressives/socialist/communist of anything they don’t want to hear that shows the truth and that truth happens to be the exact opposite of what they need to believe. They all live in their own little worlds just like our Non American president. If this one segment of our population believes that they are being mistreated now just wait until Obama declares Marshal Law just before he turns all of the Islamic Terrorist in this country loose on all of us!! Then they will know real hatred as they are being pushed off of the roofs of the tallest buildings in their home cities!!! Yes, that is how islamist deal with gays and lesbians! It is all done according to their understanding of their religious book and I guess all the fun is had by the islamist. At least it is fast and neat for us Christians, most of the time, one swift chop and our heads are gone y’all get to suffer all the way down and who are y’all going to pray to for the saving of your souls?? Just saying . . . .

  • Sabrina Rutter

    Enlightenment is slow for many….

  • SubVetPiper

    Well said!

  • carlos ayala

    If a gay person walks into the bakery and orders and cake that says ” Happy Birthday John. The baker will, i am sure, make it. If the gay person wants a cake that says ” Happy Birthday John My lover from James”. That different. That’s what the point being made here. Its not that a gay person is not being served, its they want a religious person who does not believe in gay lifestyle to now participate.

  • Mike Cazer

    It’s not a religious test … No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service is not different. Walk into my place of business without a pair of shoes or a shirt I can refuse service. Walk into MY place of business I can refuse service to anyone, it’s MY business. I want to see and hear the reactions to Muslims not only refusing service to LGBT but executing them as well.

  • moztake

    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It’s great to see young people who aren’t drinking the progressive Kool Aid. This was awesome.

  • deb b

    Thank you – thank you – thank you!!!

  • Mike Goff

    no gay no cake

  • ophelia

    Who writes on a wedding cake…ever? I have been to dozens and dozens of weddings in my life…maybe more (I used to work with a caterer), never once have I seen writing on a wedding cake. I don’t understand what makes a WEDDING cake a “gay wedding cake”. It’s a cake. A cake. I think where the cake will be served, who will eat it, etc, makes no matter in any way I can see.

    And no – I don’t think religious freedoms should come into play in a public business’ right to decide who they will & won’t serve. If a photographer doesn’ts hoot nudes…gay straight or other, then fine. But if your work is to do say sourdoir photos but you refuse to photograph someone because they are gay or lesbian, then yes, it’s discriminatory. If you choose not to photograph someone because they are fat or pregnant, also discriminatory. Don’t offer the service if you don’t want to offer it to the GENERAL PUBLIC. Period.

    I am seriously baffled by the people who say their religious freedoms are being infringed on by making food. Seriously? Your beliefs are pretty flimsy if they can be so easily bruised by doing what you chose to do for a living for someone who you think isn’t living according to “The Word”…because no one is living “According to ‘The Word”” if you happen to the read the Bible…it’s in there…all human are short of the grace of God, no sin is great er than another, etc, etc…so therefore everything you partake in, all the time, is with sinners. End of story. It’s absolutely silliness. I can believe any way I want & you can’t infringe on it…ever, unless you somehow obstruct me from being able to engage in fellowship with like minded believers or somehow inhibit me being able to participate within my religions rituals & observances. If you don’t do those things you canNOT infringe on my religious beliefs by anything YOU do in your personal life, anything you buy from me or hire me to do. My faith runs deep enough that I actually know where you end & I begin. 😉

  • Debra Ito

    Heterosexual people don’t have their wedding cake decorated with an agenda: “Bride and Groom: Marriage God’s Way!” Why do gays? Why not make their wedding a simple celebration of their love instead of a political statement? I think their friends and loved ones will notice that they are gay without plastering it all over, making the wedding more about gay rights than about love and commitment.

  • Tereasa Hall Perkins

    Obviously the courts do not believe that individuals own the business. If they did they would realize that they have the right to refuse service to anyone. If the feds want to regulate all the businesses then the businesses should not have to pay taxes.

    • jamiemcg

      Civil Rights Act of 1964 – look it up. Also, check out the non-discrimination laws of several cities and states. If you own a business in those places, you are agreeing to abide by those laws. Are you also cool with businesses letting rats run around inside? That’s another one of those silly regulations that businesses agree to adhere to by you know…opening a business.

      • Chris King

        forcing people to bake against their will is anti-freedom, no matter how you interpret the CRA.

        • jamiemcg

          No one is being forced to do anything. What is happening is that people are choosing to take part in a business for which there are rules and expectations under which the public should expect them to act if they want to stay in business. No one is putting a gun to anyone’s head, they are merely saying that if you want to participate in owning a business, there are expectations. And if you don’t,there may be legal ramifications or the public may use their free speech to denounce what you’re doing. that’s the only thing happening.

          • Chris King

            a court order isn’t being forced?
            just stop it.

          • Chris King

            no one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to breath?
            some comparison… intellectually invalid.

          • People are being forced, and their is no law, except in a few towns and states that prevent discrimination against gays.

      • The Civil Rights Act , as far as individuals, violates the US Constitution: Actually learn your laws, the Federal Government has no protections for Gays, Very few states do and even less towns do. WRONG!! And their is no right to be served by another. Rights are something we have from nature that we can get freely without taking it from another. So commerce doesn’t count.
        People have the freedom of conscious, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of self determination, ALL protected by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

        ONLY the GOVERNMENT is NOT allowed to discriminate for ANY reason,but private citizens can in their transaction. The good part of the Civil Rights Act.

  • Peleus

    But this does not meet the left’s agenda and the Gov of MI is not running in ’16. So nothing to see here, move along.

  • lyrralt

    So you’re fine with equating christianity to muslims.

    • Chris King

      where did you get that notion?

  • Timothée Ambroise Pierre Hayes

    People in the U.S. do tend to forget that a private business is sort of like entering someone’s home, the “home” of the business owner. It is NOT an extension of the street or sidewalk, NOT an extention of the public area.

  • Rosie Stern

    First of all Americans are better than all this nonsense. If you have a business you can’t discriminate. That is the law. That is one very good reason to separate religion from civil laws. Try not to make someone’s life more difficult just because they are different than you.

    • Chris King

      not doing something is now making life more difficult for someone?
      nope

  • Robyn Summers

    I don’t remember gays FORCING (the word you used) bakers to make their cakes. Did they push them into the kitchen and shackle their ankles to the oven? Granted, taking it to court is a bit over overkill, but how many same couples FORCE instead of, oh, I don’t know, asking?

    • Chris King

      big logic stretch there.
      guess you don’t feel “forced” to pay taxes either?
      please.

      • Robyn Summers

        Bad analogy. The IRS doesn’t ask. Please.

        • Chris King

          they didn’t ask the baker either, they compelled him by court order.
          I think you just lost the argument entirely.

          • Robyn Summers

            Every single gay couple did that? One does it, it must mean that every single gay couple does that now. Seen one seen, them all. Thank you for making the clear the definition of a hasty generalization.

          • Chris King

            so you have given up on a reasonable discussion.
            wonderful.
            the right to pursue happiness baking cakes should not be restricted in any way by forced labor.

          • Robyn Summers

            So given up responding like a decent person. Fabulous.

          • Chris King

            you favor forced labor… not sure I should have ever treated you decently. I tried.

  • Texan1st

    If it’s not MY business, does that mean I don’t have to pay the taxes? The government wants their cake and to eat it too.

  • Mich John

    so, you know they are not going to support you, so why go in to start with. people that do this are in it for one thing only. drama. i wouldnt go into a place that i know will not like something that i do. i am not going to support them . why go in. deserve to get treated like this if you think your going to change their minds or what they believe in. but then, that same person will say the same stuff to them because they dont like what they do. sick of this b.s.

    • Mich John

      I am a gay man, i will not go to a place that doesn’t like me or believe in what i am doing. why go in and try to make them like me. i have much more to do then worry about that. im not a school kid

  • Robert Kurz

    well let me tell you unless your born again of the water and of the Spirit your not going to enter the kingdom of God.

  • Hank1947

    Nothing to see here folks! Muslims can get away with it because they are higher up on the DO NOT OFFEND list than the (expletive deleted)s.

    • Guest

      ►►►►86$ PER HOUℛ@ai11:

      Going Here you

      Can Find Out

      ►►►► https://WorkOnlineView.com/get80/position

      ✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌✌

  • ladylge33

    It just seems to me that they are trying to take away Christian’s freedom of religion. Though I don’t care about gay marriage either way, I don’t feel you should take away someone’s right to disagree with it. That’s not freedom. A gay baker/bakery should also be able to deny a christian couple a wedding cake. The USA is supposed to be all about freedom. Stop crying and find another baker. It’s not that serious. And if you’re going to go after Christian’s, then go after muslims and buddhists too. The Dalai Lama once said, in a rather PC way, that homosexual acts do seem unnatural. I mean this is just a blatant hatred of christianity.

  • alamoampman

    Baking a cake for a gay couple would not be a sin. But jumping out of one might be…..

  • Montanagirl1

    Sorry, freedoms lost seems to be only suffered by Christians, as they are willing to turn the other cheek, What about the in you face irony that Muslims are allowed to discriminate and Christians aren’t? I guess the Christians can be singled out for special treatment and the Muslims get a pass? That’s not my definition of freedom. It applies equally to all or it doesn’t apply at all.

  • Craig Ernst

    Freedom of speech must be protected. If I say no as a business owner, I say no!

  • DontPutFrostingOnThat

    So I’m not sure I would want to eat a cake that I demanded someone make that didn’t want to.

    Also, I’m betting if I asked a baker to make me a cake that resembled a woman being beaten by her husband, I would have a really hard time pushing that agenda yet domestic violence seems to be a more popular pass time than gay marriage.

    Oh, and if I want a cake shaped like a giant penis, I’m pretty sure I’m going to have to make that myself.

  • GetSmartYou

    I think the one issue here is most of these christian bakeries were probably in business way before anyone even thought that marriage between 2 men should be legal or even acceptable by general public. Only a few people believed that 10 years ago and now the gay community thinks they should be able to force said baker to design a cake against their beliefs? Rubbish…just bake the cake and tell them they’ll have to decorate it. Why should anyone force a baker to put something on a cake they don’t want to do? Are bakers required to decorate a cake anyway the customer wants? If black man goes into bakery and says he wants cake to say “happy Birthday N**ga”, is the baker required to put that on cake? I would hope not! Both could be considered obscene to baker and how should it be law to force someone of religious belief to do something they don’t believe? I have no problem with gay people, but I have a problem with people on the left that thinks it’s ok for them to tell religious people what they must do in a free country.

  • Guest

    Penelope . true that Patricia `s report is impossible… on wednesday I bought Saab 99 Turbo since I been making $8569 thiss month and also ten/k this past month

    . it’s actualy my favourite-work I’ve had . I began this three months/ago and pretty much straight away was earning more than $75… p/h . you could try here MORE DETAIL HERE

  • bltreagan@yahoo.com

    Let me play devils advocate for a moment. I have nothing against gays at all and have many gay friends whom I love dearly.But I do have an issue with not being allowed to refuse service to anyone. If we say that no one can be turned away that opens the door for hate groups that want cakes. I myself would have problems baking and decorating a cake for example the KKK. If they wanted something on it that was racist or filled with hate. Or what about the Westboro Baptist church? If I was forced to bake a cake for those hate mongers I would spit on the damn thing. Sure it is sad that people are turned away when it is an expression of love that is wanted, but if we make it the law that we cannot refuse service to any one group are we opening the doors to racist groups as well?. I would have no problems with a baker stating publicly that gays are welcome here and I would be the first in line to buy a cake from that person rather than having someone who opposes my lifestyle and may do something like piss in my cake mix in protest…. Just a thought

  • Guest

    urtyu . you think Dennis `s stori is inconceivable… I just received Fiat Panda since getting a

    check for $8840 this – five weeks past an would you believe ten/k lass month . this is actually the coolest work I have ever had . I began this 8-months ago and almost straight away started bringin home more than $79 per-hour . visit their website MORE DETAIL HERE

  • Daniel Palos

    Shouldn’t that point of view apply Only to Criminal activities, not natural rights. What is the Right’s justification for denying and disparaging Individual Liberty and Natural Rights on a for-profit basis, in favor of an alleged subscription to the Social morals of Religion, from the Iron Age.

  • GUEST

    LOL you know how many places i have gone to just to be turned away for a sugarless cake because they don’t make them?. Do i sue for that? no. saying you don’t make a cake for a gay person isn’t any different .it’s not discriminatory, it’s business. That gay person or that person who can’t eat sugar shouldn’t push their issue and go where they make them. This pushing people to do what they want is going to lead to nothing but hate in the long run. We have lost respect for each other. You should respect how people are. I have not heard one person being disrespectful to any of the gays. They just said No i am sorry i can’t make you a cake.. The ones i seeing being hateful are the gays because their feelings got hurt. get over it and move on. Not everyone agrees with it. Go to where your wanted and stop trying to fight for every signal thing. People don’t just go into gay clubs and start stuff and then sue because someone looked at them funny.. But maybe people should..its getting out of hand..

  • Say What

    The Baiter “backell” spends a great deal of his life flapping his yap. how can you prove your dogmatic ideas rain with such supremacy. you can’t, so piss off. Hey we can mess with backell by totally igoring him. hahaha

    • Say What

      Let see how long it takes baiter backell to respond.

  • From the American Bar Association (not some fringe website): Currently, there is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws hiring or employment discrimination on the basis of the employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but does not mention sexual orientation, much less gender identity. Source: https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/summer2004/irr_hr_summer04_protectlgbt.html

  • Craig

    The fact that you feel the need to put on a particular voice is pretty poor, to be honest. Some of the butchest men I’ve seen are gay and I know a lot of feminine straight guys too. Also, I agree that they shouldn’t be in business if they can’t cater to all – they’re allowed their views but they’re providing a public service and so, regardless of their views, should still serve them. After all, it isn’t going to effect their lives in any way if they create something, make some money from it and then the person who is gay walks away with what they wanted… That’s why it’s a business. If I were to go into a DIY store, how would you feel if I weren’t served because I’m gay and therefore, seen as “not man enough” to be there? Again, beggars can’t be choosers and just because you don’t understand or agree with something, doesn’t mean you disrespect people and openly reject them when faced with them.

  • Charlie Dean

    This is so very easy…I can play the passive agressive role better than ANY gay rights person stirring up trouble. “Yes sir…I would LOVE to make you a weddig cake” LOL. The law might say I have to bake them a cake but they cannot regulate quality or artistic expression. This would be the ugliest, stiffest, most stale piece of crap cake you’ve ever seen. People I want to serve get my best work and people who are “forcing” me to violate my conscience get half-assed pieces of crap. Nothing they can do about that at all. You cant legislate quality.

  • Johnathan McFadden

    If everyone in the world put as much effort into just getting along as they do crying about everything, the world would be a good place. Gay, Str8, Bi who really cares. I would make a cake or what ever my business is for who ever is paying.

  • Guest 010001110001101111010101

    Backell: You quote a law as saying that all for public use companies must adhere to a set of government established rules at the federal level. Here is your dilemma, the federal laws by our government hold no sway on the local and state laws. They trump federal law as is the indication of our 10th amendment. However, any business, at any time, does reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time, for any reason. Government is not allowed by right if the constitution to regulate any privately held company and make rules that restrict their business in any way, so long as all permits and license to operate is valid and current. They CAN however, regulate any company with a public holding policy such as an IPO based business that holds a public interest in its success or failure. In essence, a private cake baker can tell you to pound sand and there is not a damn thing you or the government can LEGALLY do about it. Coke company on the other hand would have to comply, as they are a public corporation made up of not only the original holding owners, but any other person involved in their board and stock purchases made publicly. Get your facts straight before you spew out this half baked leftist drivel. Good day.

Quantcast