Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence

crown-of-thorns

After six years and hundreds of celebratory confections, it wasn’t the economy, the stiff competition, financing, or any of the other usual road bumps of building a new business that caused Sweet Cakes by Melissa—a husband-and-wife bakery in Portland, Oregon area—to close its doors at the end of the summer.

Instead, it was the nationwide battle over same-sex marriage.

In January, co-owner Aaron Klein had denied a request to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. “The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” his wife and business namesake, Melissa Klein told a Fox News columnist recently. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps. Protests, boycotts, and a storm of media attention—much of it negative—ensued. The couple received death threats. Then, activists broadened the boycott: any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes would be targeted.

The final nail in the coffin came in August when the slighted lesbian couple filed an anti-discrimination suit with the state. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics,” Klein said. His wife added: “I guess in my mind I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.”

Christian Wedding Vendors Under Attack
In 2006, a noted advocate for traditional marriage, Maggie Gallagher, warned that the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to constraints on religious freedom. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Gallagher saw the end of adoptions services by Boston Catholic Charities as a foreshadowing of things to come. (To retain its license, Gallagher explained, the agency would have to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which had been extended to married same-sex couples.) She couched her warning in the form of a question:

This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage. So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?

Seven years later, we have the answer: as of this writing, there have been at least 11 instances of wedding vendors and venues facing some form of recrimination—threats, boycotts, protests, and the intervention of state or judicial authorities—because they denied services for gay nuptials because of their faith. Besides Sweet Cakes by Melissa, they are:

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado: Owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in July. The Lakewood bakery has faced at least two protests, a Facebook-driven boycott, and a discrimination complaint from the state Attorney General that was scheduled for a hearing in September. Phillips has said he would rather close his bakeshop than compromise his Christian beliefs. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)

Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa: Baker Victoria Childress denied service to a lesbian couple hoping to get married in 2011. The Des Moines baker was called a “bigot” and faced a protest and Facebook boycott but refused to budge, citing her Christian faith. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)

Fleur Cakes, Oregon: Pam Regentin, the owner of the Mount Hood-area cake shop, refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple earlier this year, sparking another Facebook boycott in May. (Sources: news reports including local television.)

Liberty Ridge Farm, New York: The family-owned farm in mid-state New York is facing a human rights complaint after refusing to host a lesbian wedding in 2012. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)

All Occasion Party Place, Texas: In February, the Fort Worth-based wedding venue declined to host a wedding reception for a gay couple. An online boycott has now been launched against the business. (Sources: local news and the Huffington Post.)

Gortz Haus, Iowa: After refusing to host a gay wedding (reported in August), Betty Odgaard, the owner  of the business, received threatening calls and e-mails and now must contend with a complaint the couple has filed with the state civil rights commission. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, New Jersey: In 2012, a state judge ruled that a Methodist-owned events venue in Ocean Grove violated state law when it refused to host a gay wedding in 2007. Also, while the discrimination case was still pending, the facility lost its state tax exemption because it was deemed “no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public,” the New York Times reported. (Sources: The New York Times here and here, Philadelphia Inquirer, and LifeSiteNews.)

Elane Photography, New Mexico: The state Supreme Court ruled in August that a New Mexico photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon could not legally deny services to same-sex couples. The photographer had refused service for a lesbian commitment ceremony in 2006. One of the women had filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, which ruled against the photographers in 2008, prompting an appeals process that led to the high court decision. It’s now unclear what will happen to the business. (Sources: press releases and news reports including the Catholic News Agency and the Santa Fe New Mexican. The case is discussed further below.)

Arlene’s Flowers, Washington: A florist refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding last March and now owner Baronelle Stutzman is facing a lawsuit from the state Attorney General. (Sources: news reports including local television and the Associated Press.)

Wildflower Inn, Vermont: A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement. (Sources: The New York Times and Huffington Post.)

These cases represent a new battlefield in the clash between the freedoms of Christians and the “radical homosexual agenda,” said Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of The Thomas Moore Law Center. “Despite their relatively small numbers, radical homosexuals wield enormous power. They dominate our cultural elite, Hollywood, television, the mainstream news media, public schools, academia, and a significant portion of the judiciary,” Thompson said in an e-mail interview. “As a result of their power, homosexual activists are able to intimidate and silence opposition.”

Such fundamental clashes are linked to the spreading legalization of same-sex marriage. Of the 11 total cases cited above, three occurred within two years of their state legalizing same-sex marriage. A fourth came four years afterwards. Four others were in states that did not have same-sex marriage but had granted some legal recognition to same-sex unions, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. “When you start recognizing same-sex marriage, these cases are going to start coming up,” said Jim Campbell, an Alliance for Defense attorney involved in the New Mexico case.

The legalization of same-sex marriage has created new opportunities for Christian business owners to run afoul of longstanding anti-discrimination laws, according to Campbell. But same-sex marriage is not only creating the opportunity—it’s also affecting how those laws are interpreted, Campbell said.

Such laws ban discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” an ambiguous term that could refer either to the sexual attraction and self-identification of individuals or their behavior, according to Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council. Christian conservatives, he says, draw a distinction between an individual and his behavior. “To disapprove of homosexual relationships … is something quite different from discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation,” he said.

The line between the dignity of a person and their behavior, however, is being blurred by the Left, according to Sprigg, enabling it to wield anti-discrimination laws against Christian conservatives who are, in fact, not discriminating against individuals. As Denver baker Jack Phillips to his local CBS affiliate, “If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever.”

Sexual Liberty Before Religious Liberty
In refusing to participate in gay weddings, Christian business owners have invoked their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. As the Iowa wedding venue owner asked, “Can I have my beliefs without being ostracized for that?”

Across the country, judges are answering in the negative. In ruling against the Methodist-owned Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a state judge declared that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” In other words, religious liberty has been shoved aside to serve a higher priority—sexual liberty, Sprigg says.

For the Founding Fathers, however, it was religious freedom that took precedent over societal goals, Thompson says. “Man’s duty of honoring God is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation to the claims of civil society,” James Madison, the Framer of the Constitution, wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment). Likewise, Thomas Jefferson declared: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

“Without a narrow exemption allowed for faithful Catholics and other Christians, there is not the concern but the reality that the state is forcing Catholics and Christians to violate their faith,” said Thompson, a Catholic convert. “Society is attempting to force Catholics to violate their God–given, constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion and conscience. The very institution of the Church is being challenged and the laws that are supposed to protect our religious freedom are now being crafted to weaken and destroy that freedom.”

“The Price of Citizenship”
It’s not just the hierarchy of rights that is being inverted. It’s also the scope of the various rights that are in conflict with each other: as the right to sexual liberty has expanded, the scope of religious liberty has correspondingly narrowed.

In challenging the Colorado baker, the national ACLU said in a statement that his business was an inappropriate forum to air his religious beliefs: “[T]heir business is not a house of worship. Colorado law allows members of the clergy to decide whom they will join in a marriage or civil union—and that’s consistent with the principles of religious liberty our nation was founded on. While bakery owners are free to practice their faith and to personally oppose same-sex marriage, they cannot use those beliefs as an excuse to disrespect and discriminate against customers.”

New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson agreed. In his ominously worded concurring opinion against the wedding photographers he described limitations on religious freedom as a necessary compromise in a pluralistic democracy—in his words “the price of citizenship”:

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.

Campbell called the opinion a “wake-up call” to Christians around the country. “If you want to be a citizen and you want to be a business owner, don’t bring your beliefs,” he said.

In other words: Christians are free to exercise their religion only within the confines of their home or church, but as soon as they leave, they must subordinate those beliefs to the dictates of the anti-discrimination laws, according to Sprigg. “I call it the ‘four-walled’ freedom,” he said.

But religious freedom is not a narrow concept, Thompson says. “It is the ability to live out one’s faith in all aspects of life—which includes earning a livelihood. A wedding vendor should not be forced to check his Christianity at the door, and act in violation of his faith while trying to earn his livelihood,” Thompson said.

Tolerance Before Freedom of Speech
It’s not just religious freedom that is threatened, it’s also freedom of speech, Campbell said.

Before the state Supreme Court, the defense attorneys had argued that “photography is an expressive art form and that photography can fall within the constitutional protections of free speech,” according to the court’s summary. “Elane Photography also states that in the course of its business, it creates and edits photographs for its clients so as to tell a positive story about each wedding it photographs, and the company and its owners would prefer not to send a positive message about same-sex weddings or same-sex marriage.”

Requiring them to photograph such weddings, is “forced speech,” Campbell said. That should concern everyone, according to Campbell. Today, it might be a photographer asked to document a gay or lesbian wedding. Tomorrow, it could be a lesbian or gay photographer asked to shoot a traditional marriage rally against their convictions, he said.

“That’s the antithesis of what the Founders created in the Constitution,” Campbell said.

It’s also the antithesis of what modern liberals supposedly believe. “Tolerance is permitting opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. It is an act of intolerance to force individuals to do something against their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs. It is no more or less complicated than this,” Thompson

What the Future Holds
It’s unclear if the wedding photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon will go the way of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon. One option is to stop doing weddings. There is also the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court—which Thompson estimates would have a better than the usual one to two-percent chance of getting accepted.

So far, no judge has yet to rule in favor of a vendor who denied services to a same-sex couple on the basis of their faith. That leaves Christian business owners with no easy choices. “Currently Christian vendors are being forced to either 1) violate their religious views or 2) choose a different profession,” Thompson wrote. The upshot of it all, he said, is that faithful Christians eventually could be forced out of the wedding business.

The bigger question is what this all means, more broadly, for faith in public life. If other Christians in the United States are wondering what the future holds, they have to look no further than Europe. In Ireland, a Christian printer’s refusal to publish a gay magazine has landed him in court. In Scotland, a Presbyterian church group was turned away from a hotel because of its views on same-sex marriage. And, in France, a mayor is facing five years in prison because he wouldn’t perform a gay wedding.

If Europe is to be any guide, religious freedom may not even be safe within the ‘four walls’ of a church: in August, a gay couple announced they were mounting a legal challenge against a state law that allows British churches to opt out of holding gay weddings.

As Christians in the United State wonder on what these cases might mean for them, they would do well to reflect on a letter that a bishop recently issued to his diocese, after losing that state’s battle over marriage. The letter is addressed by Bishop Thomas Tobin to Rhode Island Catholics, but his words speak to Christians across the country: “Without a doubt this is a time of challenge, even disappointment for many of us, but it is also an opportunity to be steadfast and courageous, and to renew our commitment to Christ and His Church. As our Lord Jesus Christ told us, ‘In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world’ (Jn 16:33).”

Stephen Beale

By

Stephen Beale is a freelance writer based in Providence, Rhode Island. He is a former news editor at GoLocalProv.com and was a correspondent for the New Hampshire Union Leader, where he covered the 2008 presidential primary. He has appeared on Fox News, C-SPAN and the Today Show and his writing has been published in the Washington Times, Providence Journal, the National Catholic Register and on MSNBC.com and ABCNews.com. A native of Topsfield, Massachusetts, he graduated from Brown University in 2004 with a degree in classics and history.

  • Bedarz Iliaci

    Justice Bosson is precisely correct.-“all of us must compromise to accommodate the contrasting values of others” if we are to form a nation since being a nation implies a certain moral consensus.

    Thus, the tradition-minded people are out of the moral consensus that has been formed by the elite. They do not belong to the America 2.0, to use a coinage of late Lawrence Auster.

    • lifeknight

      You have been OUTED

      • Tradmeister

        Bedarz is actually correct in a sense; given the secularist presumptions of the US, there really is no feasible alternative to certain forms of compromise and accommodation.

        This is what happens when we hail the secularized Red, White, and Blue at the expense of the Social Reign of Christ.

        If you think otherwise, lifeknight, guess what? You have been OUTED!

        • lifeknight

          haha! Sounds as if Bedarz is like the Pope–I am not sure what he is saying, as evidenced by all the reply comments. Again, ANY support for the gay agenda is evil and detrimental to any society, American or otherwise.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            America has decided to support the gay agenda, thus America has become evil. Agreed.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I think you’ve overstepped on this one. Bedarz is clearly lamenting the fact that the gays have taken over.

        • lifeknight

          Support of their agenda in ANY way is detrimental to society.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            It isn’t support. It is surrender.

            I must admit I’ve got the same question as Bedarz. Given this development, is it still moral to be an American Citizen? Or has our government gotten to the point that being a citizen is incompatible with being a Catholic?

            • ericpinola

              Sad day when that happens, because as an American it means that the time to fight has come and the time for words has passed.

              • TheodoreSeeber

                It’s much, much worse than that. The time to fight, in this case, was 80 years ago, and we tried to use words instead, so the other side won.

                • ericpinola

                  The fight is coming, don’t lose heart. This nation will have to experience another revolution in order for the outcome to be final.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    I’m not so sure. The lord has learned the lessons of the past, and has offered shelter to the serfs from the marauders. The new breed of feudal master is smart, he protects you from marauders that he creates.
                    I hope you are right, but I smell a boiling frog.

                  • TheodoreSeeber

                    Yeah, because the last one was so successful- at kicking God out of government.

            • Crusader for Christ

              Yes, it is immoral to be an American. Also, “Christian” and “business” no longer go together. The courts have said, very loudly, that freedom of Catholic worship within the four walls of your closet are OK, anything else will land you in the dungeon.
              Practice your faith in public, expect a billy club to your head.
              Time for those who live in the People’s Republic of North America (formerly known as “USA”) to shake the dust off their sandals and hit the road. Costa Rica is a nice place, maybe Uruguay…

              • Valentin

                I don’t think that “business” and “Christian” are completely incompatible just do what Italian restaurants do on the east coast do namely dodge taxes like the plague, pay your employees under the table I know people who sell honey this way. But I see your point and eventually we may have to say F it and split via an ardent revolution in favor of Culture with a capitol C and the Catholic Church.

              • mitchw7959

                You’re going to have to go further afield than Uruguay.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Uruguay

                Perhaps someplace medieval like Uganda, Russia, or Iran would be better choices for Catholic ex-pats.

    • Desert Sun Art

      Are you implying that we no longer should be American citizens? Are you claiming that America should no longer tolerate different views?

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Rather, he’s claiming that American Citizenship has become incompatible with Catholicism, and that America no longer tolerates different views. That is the fact.

        It was America that left us, not us that left America.

        • Desert Sun Art

          Agreed.

        • poetcomic1

          The day America put our mothers and daughters in front line combat and there was nary a peep out of our 21st century girlie-men I took down my American flag.

          • Adam__Baum

            And yet, the PSA’s still tell every “young man” he has a “duty” to register with Selective Service (enforced of course, by coercion).
            The ironies and inconsistencies of the secular-humanist state are everywehere.

    • James1

      So, those who’ve been denied services from the various businesses cited couldn’t have compromised themselves and patronized a different business that would have accommodated them?

      When “compromise” is mentioned, it never seems to work both ways, does it?

      • Valentin

        Good job at pointing out the irony in his statement.

    • thisoldspouse

      What are the sodomites being asked to compromise in these incidences?

  • Tyler

    At the end of the day, discrimination is discrimination. You can’t refuse to do business with someone based on their sexual orientation. What always confounds me about business owners who refuse to bake cakes or sell flowers to gay people getting married is this: the bible says that divorced people who get remarried are committing adultery. So why do they still get to buy cakes and flowers. It’s a hypocritical double standard that, in the end, comes down to discrimination against gay people.

    • GAgrandma

      I disagree. A business owner can tell quite obviously that the cake or flowers or pictures, etc. are for a same sex “marriage”, which is a mortal sin. On the other hand, a person cannot judge if a heterosexual couple is getting married after a divorce or after an annulment of the Church. It’s not discrimination against “gay people”, it’s discrimination against obvious sin! Marriage is between one man and one woman, as ordained by God and nature, plain and simple.

      • Amadeus

        That is your religious belief. I will uphold your right to believe as you see fit and to worship as you see fit. I do not uphold your misguided desire to inflict your beliefs on the rest of society. Sorry, but neither God nor church gives you the authority to demand that everyone else follows your beliefs.

        • Adam__Baum

          Because intolerance is bad, unless I it’s intolerance I like.
          Why don’t YOU mind YOUR own business. You want to make gay wedding cakes, go for it. Don’t inflict your beliefs “on the rest of society”.

          • Tim

            This is so backwards. Asking to be sold a neutral item like any other member of the public, to use as you see fit (which isn’t the shopkeeper’s business once it leaves the store) isn’t an attempt to impose beliefs on anyone, just to be treated equally and have people keep their nose out of your business. On the other hand, believing that your disagreement with someone gives you the right to be concerned about their life once they leave the store, to the point of refusing service…that IS an imposition.

            The burden of proof is on the person who wants to treat a case differently, not on the person who wants to be treated the same. The latter is just the default, not some sort of active imposition.

        • squishee

          You are full of it ‘Amadeus”! I dare say you care nothing of my rights as evidenced by the rest of your premise. No one is holding anyone’s feet to the fire to believe as he does. Nor is anyone demanding to follow his own beliefs. Don’t come to MY store and tell Me that I MUST conform to your perverted and sinful way of life! Sodomites have a right to go some where else or bake there own cake! 10/4?

          • Tim

            Selling someone a generic product isn’t conforming to anything.

            • squishee

              If I was a chemist, and Adolph himself came to my store and asked for some prussic acid, should I sell it to him? The same is true with sodomites who come in my store asking for acceptance of their lifestyle by affirming their “wedding” with the sale of a cake… Maybe I should sell ol’ ‘Dolph the prussic acid. I mean- Who am I to judge?

              • Tim

                Selling someone a cake doesn’t constitute acceptance or affirmation of anything other than that the people exist and can eat and maybe have a sweet-tooth. Giving them a cake to serve to guests doesn’t constitute any sort of affirmation of the event’s purpose.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                The criminal law can be instructive here. If A employs B to make him a set of pick-locks and skeleton keys, not for a particular act of housebreaking, but only as a means of carrying on his general business as a thief, then B cannot be held guilty of the housebreakings which he may subsequently commit by means of these implements.

                On the other hand, B may be art and part of a particular act of housebreaking by A, if it appear that he made and supplied A with some special instrument for that specific purpose. For example, if it could be proved that A got him to examine the lock of a particular house, and to make an instrument suitable for opening it, that might be sufficient to make B guilty art and part of the housebreaking. Such cases must, of course, depend on special circumstances.

                • Art Deco

                  Does A have a cause of action against B if B refuses to make the pick locks?

                  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                    No, unless he does so for an unlawful reason, such as unlawful discrimination, or as part of an anti-competitive agreement or the like.

                    I am assuming no prior contract to supply.

                    I gave the example to show what the law does and does not regard as complicity.

        • Andy, Bad Person

          That is your religious belief. I will uphold your right to believe as you see fit and to worship as you see fit.

          Excellent. It appears as if you have bought into the Left’s latest lie, that the First Amendment protects your “Freedom of worship.” Unfortunately, that’s not what the First Amendment is; instead, it protects your Free Exercise of Religion, which in a sane world would include non-participation in that which one finds immoral.

    • lifeknight

      You have been OUTED.

    • Desert Sun Art

      Did you read the article? None of these business owners refused business do to sexual orientation. They stated that baking a birthday cake, or photographing a graduation, etc, for LGBT was not an issue for them. It depends strictly on what the event is. For a Christian florist, baker, photographer, etc, they cannot in good conscience become involved in LGBT weddings.

      If you were a gay business owner and your business was a meeting venue, would you host an anti-gay marriage gathering at your venue?

      In the case of Christians, it’s not just adhering to certain principles, it’s about refraining from sin and violation of conscience, which is extremely important to a faithful Christian.

      • Tim

        Under no coherent moral system or philosophy of society is selling a generic product to someone from a public accommodation “involvement” or cooperation in HOW that product will be used once it leaves the store.

        They can’t make a baker decorate something with a controversial message. But it is not a public accommodation’s business, legally and morally, how a generic product offered for sale to the general public…is going to be used.

        • Desert Sun Art

          That is not the issue. No one is talking about buying something from a store and dictating how that something is to be used.

          The photographer and wedding venue owners are being asked to participate in a wedding that they conscientiously object to. Especially in the case of the photographer. In the case of the cake, there is less direct involvement, yet, isn’t it up to the bakery owner to decide if their conscience is being violated?

          We’ve been told so many times by promoters of gay marriage that it won’t hurt anyone. Then tell me, why are people being forced to go against their God and their conscience or be forced to close their businesses because of gay marriage? Gays wanting to get married can find plenty of businesses who will accommodate them.

          • Tim

            Yes, the photographer’s conscience is probably being violated, because photography is art, it is creative expression, and you can’t be forced in that matter.

            A venue, on the other hand, is not morally an accessory. Venues offer their rooms for the night “no questions asked” and assuming no legal negligence, what happens in there from then on is a “black box” in the same way as when a product leaves a store; it’s no longer any of their business.

            If you offer a room for public use, then that’s the legal implication.

            • Art Deco

              Whether someone is being ‘creative’ or not while attorneys are harassing him is of interest to those employed at being ‘creative’. Freedom is not for histrionic types only.

            • Art Deco

              But I am not offering a room for ‘public use’ full stop. I am offering a room for uses I define.

            • Desert Sun Art

              And yet, the judge ruled against the photographer as well.

              As to the venue owners, whether gay or straight, I would think there would be a limit to what would be permitted. I was thinking of meeting rooms and ballrooms when I mentioned venues, not hotel bedrooms. Should any of these business owners allow any and all kinds of activities to go on in their meeting rooms?

              • Tim

                If it’s not illegal or a liability, and leaves the room spotless and undamaged in the morning, sure.

                • guest

                  Would you claim any moral concerns about a Catholic grade school renting their hall to make a porn video. All legal.

                  • Tim

                    A catholic grade school is not in the business of renting itself as a venue to the public generally! So it’s a silly example.

        • Art Deco

          Under no coherent moral system or philosophy of society is selling a
          generic product to someone from a public accommodation “involvement” or
          cooperation in HOW that product will be used once it leaves the store.

          And you’ve surveyed them all.

          Google “Cesar Chavez” and “grapes”

        • Pay

          Legalistic reasoning. The cake is not simply a generic commodity but part of a service used to facilitate and celebrate an immoral act .

          • Tim

            So are the napkins. Can a grocery store refuse to sell someone a pack of napkins on that account? So are the tuxedos. Can I refuse to rent one if I hear the guy is going to be a guest at said wedding? Or let’s say a photographer does agree, as part of his own business, to photograph it. Can I refuse to sell him film and thus obstruct his own profit and business decision? The principle you imagine is simply unfeasible.

            • Art Deco

              Strange as it may seem, in a free society, you are not compelled to have napkins in your inventory. You are not compelled to do business with anyone you do not care to.

              • Tim

                If you do have napkins in your inventory, though, and are a public accommodation, you are not allowed to discriminate in their sale based on your opinion of the people involved or on suspicions that you disagree with the context in which those napkins will be used.

                You’re not compelled to do business with anyone. But if you want to remain open as a public accommodation (which is a sort of privilege), then you will follow the rules of society’s market that has allowed you to set up shop in our square. If you want to set up a truly private trading club, fine.

                But you don’t get to “have it both ways” and claim both the benefits of being a PUBLIC accommodation but then invoke PRIVATE association rights to discriminate on the PUBLIC level.

                • Art Deco

                  You keep invoking ‘public accommodation’ as if they were magic words. They are not. It is a category of convenience for positive law, nothing more, and nothing less. You are taking as given innovations in commercial law which were atypical for any sort of enterprise other than inns prior to 1965. They certainly did not apply to handicraft manufacturers or generic service providers, which is what bakers and photographers are. We are telling you these innovations are unjust for obvious reasons.

                  In a decent society, it is never understood as a ‘privilege’ to earn a living on one’s own account. It should certainly not be ‘privilege’ to restrict one’s custom. It is ordinary discretion proper to free men.

                  • Tim

                    The common marketplace is a social good, not a private right. One is free to make private transactions with individuals all one wishes, but when one enters the public economic square, there is a social contract given that one is then receiving the benefits of the marketplace.

                    Do you know the history of medieval Christendom. The King regulated certain “market days” at “market towns” and to set up a stall and sell publicly apart from that was illegal! Sure, you could trade with you neighbor man-to-man, privately. But you couldn’t offer your wares to the world at large without a specific license, a market day, etc.

                    Regulating the commons, regulating public trade in the common market, is not against the Christian social vision at all. It’s against libertarianism, that’s all. But Christendom very much saw the right to set up your stall in a Market to trade as a strictly regulated privilege.

                    • Art Deco

                      The utility of regulating the use of common property resources is that when things are held in common, individual usufructuaries lack the incentive to care for the property and the property is trashed. A regulatory regime constrains that. Nowadays, these issues are most acutely manifest in the realm of fishing harvests.

                      All of that is irrelevant to whether you should have to do business with every pushy poof who walks through your door to establish himself as a straw plaintiff.

                    • Valentin

                      The king was also not an irrational bureaucrat who cries alongside fags and he was certainly more of a man than most politicians. The market-place is a property of someone who owns that land and they have discretion over the marketplace, just as a cake shop owner has discretion over his cake shop not the public.

                  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                    Art Deco

                    Inns and common carriers, too. That goes back to the Praetorian Edict, “nautae, caupones, stabularii.” The later Civilians extended it to other “common callings,” such as millers.

                    • Art Deco

                      So what? Michael, we live in a society very far from subsistence and almost no one is taking grain to the (monoplistic) village miller. These examples are just irrelevant to the rhythms of modern life. As recently as 1960, you had broad discretion in this country to restrict your custom.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      Art Deco

                      In my own case, as a Scottish advocate, the acts of 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not, if, in the one case a client, and in the other, the court, pleases to insist on it. It is the price the Faculty pays for its right of audience. If not otherwise engaged, I am obliged to accept a solicitor’s instructions to appear.

                      It is known as the “cab rank principle,” because licensed cab drivers, under the Hackney Carriage Acts, have the obligation to carry any passenger within the city limits as the counterpart of their exclusive right to ply for hire.

                    • Art Deco

                      And, again, so what? Assigned counsel plans are familiar in this country, though they are poor ways of delivering legal services. When one is a defendant, one is not a free agent.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      Art Deco

                      But pursuers are. If a solicitor acting for a gay couple instructs me to draw a writ of summons against a recalcitrant baker, under the Act of 1571, I cannot refuse, unless I can plead other business. Nor could I refuse, if a baker’s solicitor instructs me to draw defences in a similar action.

                    • Art Deco

                      What’s your point? We cannot help it in America if the regulations governing the legal profession in Scotland are bollocks. An attorney and counselor at law in this country is free to limit his practice to whatever lines of business he cares to. He is constrained from withdrawing as counsel in certain circumstances, but he is not compelled to take a case unless he is in a jurisdiction with an assigned counsel plan, and that would only apply in the case of an indigent criminal defendant in a county too indolent to set up a public defenders’ office.

                • Valentin

                  A businessman is not a freaking public accommodation, he is a man and as such has the freedom to decide what he sells, and gifts and who may receive those offers.

            • Valentin

              Yes all those things can be refused and should be if they support a “gay wedding reception”.

        • Valentin

          How is it not involvement when a product shifts from your hands to someone else’s? If I supply someone something for a certain occasion my transaction benefits the occasion.

    • Steve Frank

      No one is being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The baker was perfectly willing to offer homosexuals their services for other types of events (birthdays, graduations, etc.). Likewise if a straight person were to marry someone of the same gender for some bizarre reason, the baker would still refuse to offer that person their services even though they were straight. So the issue is not anyone’s sexual orientation per se, it’s the event itself (ie. the wedding) that is being discriminated against. That still may be offensive to you, but please don’t equate this to the classical understanding of discrimination (such as blacks being refused service in a restaurant). There is a huge difference between discriminating against an event vs. discriminating against a person.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I think maybe somebody should.

      • Tim

        You need to make the distinction between an act of artistic creativity or expression, which cannot be coerced, and a morally neutral product or service that is offered to the public generally.

        This article discusses it well:

        http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/09/29/the-klans-birthday-cake-individual-boycotts-and-the-ethics-of-refusing-to-give-service-to-jerks/

        It’s not right to require a baker to write some gay-marriage message on the cake or to decorate it with a little statue of two grooms or two brides if the baker does not want to or disagrees with that message.

        It IS, however, perfectly sensible for a gay couple to request the baking of a “blank” wedding-style cake such as is sold to the public at large, to anyone who requests it. Without any specifying signifiers, it’s really none of the baker’s business how it is going to be used, even if they do find out.

        Artists as such cannot be forced into any act of creativity or expression they disagree with. But public accommodations offering neutral or generic products to the public cannot discriminate between members of the public based merely on how they think the product will be used. A paper store could not refuse to sell a ream of blank stationary to a gay couple either, even if the gay couple was planning to print wedding invitations on that ream.

        I’m not saying there are no ambiguous cases that would require the courts to figure it out. But the general principles here are pretty obvious and pretty solid.

        • Steve Frank

          Tim, where does the Constitution make any distinction between artistic expression or “neutral products”? It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” Moral opposition to homosexuality is deeply rooted in every major faith tradition of the West. And it was certainly rooted in the Judao-Christian faith that the founding fathers saw as the moral foundation of Western Civilization. The problem today is that much of the modern judiciary no longer interprets the Constitution according to it’s original meaning. So in order to gut the first amendment of almost all it’s meaning, liberal judges simply redefine “free exercise of religion” to what happens about an hour per week in a church building and that’s it. Everything else is fair game for government control. Which is ludicrous since to a devout religious person, the practice of their religion is something that affects behavior 24/7.

          Splitting hairs about how cakes get decorated is not the point. If the baker knows the cake is going to be used for a gay wedding, then in their conscience they feel they are an accessory to someone else’s sin which is a violation of their free practice of religion. My goodness, we’ve allow men to be exempted from combat duty as conscientious objectors during wars like WWII where our country’s very survival was at stake. That’s how seriously this country has always taken religious conscience. And yet we can’t even give a baker a conscience exemption over a stupid cake! It’s sad how far this once great nation has fallen.

          This can not be compared to other examples of discrimination like a refusal to serve blacks at lunch counters. That’s because no major religion has ever taught that it’s a sin for black people to eat. Anyone who would refuse to serve a black person food is not acting out of religious conscience. You can’t lump all examples of supposed “discrimination” together and make laws that apply to them all equally. Where there is a free practice of religion issue at stake, things are different. We are then talking about a first amendment that government has no right to infringe regardless of how well-intentioned such intervention may be.

          • Tim

            “Tim, where does the Constitution make any distinction between artistic expression or ‘neutral products’?”

            Civil rights legislation addresses this, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. But anyway, the Constitution is not the source of Catholic social doctrine.

            Expression is protected. Someone could not be made to express something they disagreed with or which went against their conscience.

            But public accommodations offer their products for sale to the public at large; their very legal and moral nature (even in Catholic social teaching!) makes it “none of their business” what the product is used for once it leaves the store. No one believes that selling a generic product to someone constitutes some sort of moral participation in what they will do with it once they leave the store, or an expression of support (“tacit” or otherwise) for that use. As long as it’s nothing illegal, businesses are to remain utterly agnostic about that.

            “Everything else is fair game for government control. Which is ludicrous since to a devout religious person, the practice of
            their religion is something that affects behavior 24/7.”

            No major religion (including Catholicism) considers it moral cooperation simply to sell a product that is offered to the public at large, even if one suspects an illicit use.

            I believe Augustine even addressed this re: animals that were going to be used in a pagan sacrifice. He said Christians had no obligation to refuse sale in such cases, and could sell in clean conscience.

            “If the baker knows the cake is going to be used for a gay wedding, then in their conscience they feel they are an accessory to someone else’s sin which is a violation of their free practice of religion.”

            No major religion has a notion of accessory that works this way. See above re: Augustine and animals bought for pagan sacrifice.

            However, even if some minor sect DID have a notion of moral cooperation that had an impossibly strict standard like this, it still really wouldn’t matter, as religious freedom (at least, for non-Catholics) is not an absolute value. If some religion’s precepts put an undue burden on certain legitimate state ends, it can be limited. Notions (which aren’t held by the Church, remember) that the mere sale of publicly offered goods with a suspected illicit end constitutes being an “accessory” with the sin…would make society itself unworkable, as each person could then set himself up as judge over every other and use the threat of withholding services to coerce people to act how they wanted.

            “we’ve allowed men to be exempted from combat duty as conscientious objectors during wars like WWII where our country’s very survival was at stake.”

            But it’s not comparable. That was a question of the government making them do something they did not believe in.

            Rather, the analogy would be if a cab-driver refused to take anyone in uniform to the army base or to the deployment dock. I doubt the Right would see that as acceptable in any sense.

            “That’s because no major religion has ever taught that it’s a sin for black people to eat. Even the most vile racist doesn’t believe he’s an accessory to sin by selling food to a black person. Anyone who would refuse to serve a black person food is not acting out of religious conscience.”

            That is really irrelevant. It is conceivable that someone belonging to some small sect MIGHT believe such a thing. Yet they would not receive a “conscience” exception either. The answer would be: “Then you shouldn’t be running a public accommodation.”

            • Steve Frank

              “But it’s not comparable. That was a question of the government making them do something they did not believe in”

              Not comparable? Discrimination laws enacted and enforced by government are forcing photographers and bakers to “do things they don’t believe in”, namely to act as participants in the celebration of a same sex marriage. How is that any different than government asking a man to pick up arms in combat, other than in the degree to which conscience might be offended? Conscientious objectors were asking for a lot….they were asking that they be allowed to stay home while others went off to die to protect this nation (including them) during a war for it’s survival. Yet religious conscience was so sacrosanct that government allowed this, even though these conscientious objectors were often shamed by the public for taking the stand they did. The bakers and photographers we are talking about are asking for a far smaller accommodation for the sake of their consciences…simply the freedom to deny baking a cake or taking some pictures. Whether you or I think such acts should bother their consciences or not is beside the point, any more than whether you or I think a soldier’s conscience should be bothered by taking up arms in a war of self defense.

              • Art Deco

                I think Tim’s point is that those trafficking in words and images get dispensations those trafficking in hardware do not, because expressive! Funny what sorts benefit from that.

              • Tim

                It’s not at all comparable to soldiers being sent to war with no choice because the baker does have a choice: he can close shop and refuse to be a public accommodation. Maybe he can even legally structure himself as a private cake club with membership dues. But he won’t go to jail for refusing accommodation; civil rights is, in such cases, a civil matter, not a criminal matter. There’s a huge difference there legally.

                • Art Deco

                  What your saying is that he is to be prohibited from following his trade unless he endorses the opinions on social questions and taste favored by the Regime.

                  By the way, if I hold a gun to your head and tell you to cough up information ‘ere I pulled the trigger, I have not interfered with your autonomy, because you retain the choice to be shot.

                  • Tim

                    But there is no absolute right to practice your trade. The government cannot interfere in private dealings or associations, but it does have the right to regulate commerce. You retain the right, again, to private dealings, but that does NOT necessarily mean you have the right to set up your stand in the public market, to have a “stall in the public bazaar,” as I said before. It is society’s bazaar, society’s market, and society can make rules for people who are taking advantage of the collective benefit which is the exposure of the public forum. Private property and private deals between individuals are one thing. Who gets to take advantage of the common “bazaar” to offer products PUBLICLY…is a public matter! Catholic Social Teaching is NOT Libertarian.

                    • Art Deco

                      You are not engaged in operationalizing Catholic Social Teaching if you are attempting to exploit it to require people to do business with pairs of dykes and assist said dykes with tasks peculiar to their ‘profession’. Stop it.

                      Any regulatory system respects the autonomy of people to earn a living on their own account. Commercial law acts to define the scaffolding which surrounds commercial transactions and the procedures to be followed in the course of those transactions.

                      You have confounded commercial regulation with occupational licensure. The utility or disutility of such licensure aside, you are not even pretending a relation to public health and safety. You are proposing legal harrassment of vendors for not sharing the social ideology of the Regime. That is certainly an infringement on their liberty.

                      Also, shops are not common property. Only common property is common property.

                    • Tim

                      Shops are not common property. The market as a whole (the “public square” in which those shops operate) is.

                      No one is harassing vendors for disagreement about anything. The vendors are the ones who are attempting to turn that disagreement into a unilateral right to deny service even though the public market operates in such a way that HOW a product is used is supposed to be “none of my business” once it leaves the shop.

                      The State and the people denied service aren’t trying to get you to agree to anything, merely to realize what fair-play means in the market in the face of disagreement. And it means disagreement is not valid grounds for denying the purchase of in-itself neutral items, because the use of said items is the business of the customer, not the seller, who retains no interest in them once they have been purchased. What happens after that is quite literally “not their business,” and should not interest them, as their business is to literally sell away their interest in the item.

                    • Tim

                      This is not about trying to “enforce agreement” or any such nonsense.

                      It’s about upholding a basic principle of this market, that applies to everyone equally, that a shopkeeper has no right to dictate the use of a product once ownership is transferred, nor a right to dictate that products offered generally, to the public-at-large, are only for this or that purpose.

                      In the old days, certain teetotallers selling their house tried include provisions saying the new owners agreed never to drink in the house. Needless to say, courts ruled such agreements utterly unenforceable once ownership transferred.

                      This isn’t about making anyone agree with anything. It’s about a general principle that when products are offered to the general public, they are offered unconditionally.

                    • Art Deco

                      What ‘basic principle of the market’? You are asserting a merchant can be compelled by law to do business with clientele in state-protected categories. Not done much (if at all) prior to 1965.

                      And, yes, we did catch the dodgy reframing. The merchants being harassed by the courts and the ‘civil rights’ shysters were not attempting to put restrictive covenants on their photographs or baked goods. They were exercising their liberty to refuse a commission. (By the way, restrictive covenants on deeds were common prior to 1950).

                    • Tim

                      To me, it’s less about protected categories and more about the idea that a shopkeeper has no right to be concerned with what happens once the product is sold.

                      Being able to exclude people from buying based on economically extraneous factors messes with how supply-and-demand works, for one, which calculates prices through something like the system watching everyone “bid.” If you can exclude some “bidders” at will (say, the lower bidders) you would be manipulating the process.

                  • Tim

                    And, btw, this has nothing to do with requiring anyone to endorse a taste or moral philosophy. It has to do with how public establishments taking advantage of the public market cannot withhold service due to a disagreement on such matters. It’s not taking away the right to disagree, it is saying that such a disagreement cannot be construed as giving you a right to withhold service, and that if your religion does require such a thing (though Catholicism does not; at worst it is remote material cooperation) then you probably shouldn’t be opening a public accommodation.

                    But that has nothing to do with enforcing any particular opinion on the specific question. That has to do with a meta-disagreement about how such disagreements are to be handled by public accommodations. But in this case, while the Church would come down against the liberals on the specific question (ie, the morality of gay marriage), Catholic Social Teaching would actually AGREE with the principle that says such a disagreement does not constitute valid grounds for a public accommodation to deny service.

                    • Art Deco

                      And, btw, this has nothing to do with requiring anyone to endorse a taste or moral philosophy.

                      Oh yes it does. Stop lying.

                    • Tim

                      It’s not a question of trying to stop anyone from disagreeing. It’s a question of what that disagreement implies for how business operates within the public economic market.

                    • Crusader for Christ

                      “if your religion does require such a thing […] then you probably shouldn’t
                      be opening a public accommodation.”
                      So, by your logic, unless one is atheist or belongs to a faith community which is 100% in agreement with the State, one has no business having a business. How, exactly, is that NOT discrimination *against* people who hold unpopular beliefs? Are members of unpopular religions supposed to, die?, become atheist?, move to a primitive country? If one cannot work, one does not eat. (don’t give the lame excuse of work for somebody else. My employer required us to sign a form saying we would actively promote homosexuality or be let go. Federal EEOC required it. I considered it not a sin since it was done under duress.)

                      Heck, even the KKK and the Nazi’s are given a parade permit once a year.

                • Steve Frank

                  Of course the soldier has a choice. He can leave the country.. That happened during Vietnam when many men fled to Canada. They were called draft dodgers.

                  • Tim

                    That was not a legal choice, though. Shutting down your business entirely, is.

                    • Steve Frank

                      It was only illegal for those who were actually drafted then fled. Some fled before they were drafted (a lottery system based on birth dates made it clear to every man what his chances of being drafted might be). So there were legal options for avoiding combat duty for those with conscience issues.

                      You seem anxious to split hairs here. My general point stands. The freedom to practice one’s religion according to conscience is so foundational to our nation’s principles (or at least it used to be) that even a civic duty as critical to our nation’s survival as combat duty in time of war has had to take a back seat to it. Yet here we are today arguing over the right of gays to get a wedding cake from the baker of their choice is so sacrosanct that principles of religious conscience must bow to it.

                    • Tim

                      That’s not the right in question at all. No one is saying there is a right to demand that someone sell you something, only that if they do offer items for sale to the public-at-large, you have a right to buy them like anyone else, even if the seller disagrees with you, or doesn’t like you, or is made uncomfortable by the thought of how “his” product will be used once it leaves the store. But that’s the thing: it’s not his once it leaves the store.

                      The principle at stake isn’t a right to have cakes. It’s equality and how to make a market workable in a pluralist context by requiring that products offered to the public are offered “blind,” unconditionally, and impersonally.

                    • Steve Frank

                      It’s not that simple. All products can not be offered “blindly”. The person who sells the napkins that get used at a gay wedding reception is part of a blind financial transaction. The person who is hired as the DJ is also offering a service that is for sale, but they are expected to become part of the celebration. It’s not “blind” involvement” in the wedding. Baking a wedding cake probably falls somewhere in the middle of those two examples. That’s why the broadly worded anti discrimination laws we have will not do. We should be able to craft carefully worded laws that protect religious conscience without creating an environment where people are unable to obtain essential services. All it requires is a little common sense, but there’s not much of that left anymore in our increasingly cynical, partisan, polarized, and easily offended culture.

                    • Tim

                      Well, thank you, Steve. I agree with you here!

                      But I’d argue that the “expression” qualification is enough. A DJ or band is being asked to be creative. As you say, he’s being asked to become “part of the celebration,” to do his “performance art” in a manner that implies approval (though when you said “blindly” I think of that piano-player with a blind-fold in “Eyes Wide Shut” lol)

                      Selling a “blank” generic cake, such as is offered to everyone in their catalog…is not like this at all. If they want words or some sort of controversial decoration or design, then of course that’s problematic and interferes with free expression. But “wedding-style” cakes can certainly be sold “blindly.” Likewise, as long as they aren’t asked to write the invitations or design them, I don’t think a public printing place can refuse to print them.

                      The question is whether what you do expresses affirmation. Selling an item or renting a space does not. If you have to be there during it (and so are expected to not express disapproval, to look happy, to actively facilitate the flow of events) then that is beyond what you can require someone to do.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                During Carnot’s levée en masse in 1793, “conscientious objectors” were guillotined by the cart-load, just as draft evaders and deserters made up a good proportion of those executed during the Terror.

                • Art Deco

                  I am just not understanding the point of these historical references.

                  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                    That even states founded on principles of liberty have rejected the claim of conscientious objectors to exemption from military service

      • Amadeus

        So you are saying that a bakery can refuse to provide a wedding cake to a mixed culture or mixed race couple based on their personal belief that these people should not be getting married, right?

        How do you think that would fare with the general public or in the courts?

        By your reasoning, a florist, caterer, or anyone other business providing services could refuse to provide goods/services for a Bar / Bat Mitzvah because the ceremony goes against their own personal religious belief. Correct?

        • Adam__Baum

          No, because there’s no impedimernt to mixed race couples marrying. Franco Harris and many others are living proof such unions are fruitful and productive.

          If you want to argue miscegenation laws, you’ll find no quarter here, go troll a klan website-they have the a taste for imposing their rules by force, just like you.

          As for the Bar Mitzvah, I’m fairly certain that an observant Jewish family would want a Kosher celebration, so the analog to your argument would be they should be forced to consider Christians and Muslim providers because they have no right to discriminate.

        • Steve Frank

          My personal opinion is that unless they are providing an essential service (food, medicine, etc.), a PRIVATE business should be free to decline doing business with anyone for whatever reason they wish. It’s called freedom. And sometimes it’s messy. That’s just my opinion though.

          What’s not my opinion is what the Constitution says. And it explicitly projects religious practice. Following the moral codes of a religion falls under “religious practice”. And the Catholic Church is clear that to be an accessory to the sin of another person is to share in their guilt.

          As far as interracial marriage, if someone belongs to a religion that believes as part of it’s code that such marriages are sinful then I would say the same thing, that the state has no right to force any business owner to participate in it (if he can demonstrate that he follows a religion that prohibits such marriages in it’s religious code). We either believe in religious freedom and the Constitution or we don’t.

          How my opinions would fare with most of our “American idol” culture is irrelevant to me. Most Americans could probably not even explain to you what is in the first Amendment, so I would hardly expect the majority of them to hold positions consistent with it’s guarantees.

          • Tim

            But your ignoring the fact that operating as a public accommodation, taking advantage of the PUBLIC marketplace by setting up shop in it…is already a sort of privilege, not an absolute right. Private transactions are one thing, but you’re claiming private rights to avoid social responsibilities while also exploiting the commons.

            • Steve Frank

              “taking advantage of the PUBLIC marketplace by setting up shop in it…is already a sort of privilege, not an absolute right”

              A privilege? Business owners invest their own money to start a business, purchase property with their own money to set up shop, pay the government taxes on that purchase, pay yearly property taxes on it, pay income taxes on all their profits, pay FICA taxes for their employees, and that’s still not enough to consider doing business with the public their right? It’s still just a “privilege” that the government lets them transact business to get a financial return on their investment? We obviously have radically different views of government and freedom.

              • Tim

                They do gain a right to sell to the public. The WHOLE public. Their investment does not mean they can act with impunity. If they want to keep their “stall in the bazaar,” they agree to abide by certain things.

                • Steve Frank

                  Your original words that setting up shop is a “privilege” bestowed on us by government betrays the ultimate divide between us and that is that you are a statist. You believe that government must police private commerce in order to make sure everyone is being “fair”. I believe that the free market has a way of taking care of these matters. As a society, we have matured enough on issues of equality that any private business that was guilty of egregious bigotry (such as refusing to serve blacks) would be boycotted and out of business in no time purely by free market forces. The civil rights laws of the 1960s have outlived their usefulness. They now do more harm than good. All you have to do is look at this example of the baker to see that. The baker lost their business and livelihood. The worst that happened to the gay couple is that they perhaps had to drive a little further to another baker.

                  • Paul McGuire

                    And in the same way most of society believes that the shop owners mentioned in this article are bigots and are exercising that same right of boycott. How is it that you applaud it in the case of the racist owner but it is persecution in the case of the religious owner?

                    • Art Deco

                      Recall Chas. Krauthammer’s definition of what he called ‘plural solipsism’. “Not the notion the world is me, but the notion that everyone is like me”. Something to avoid.

                    • Steve Frank

                      I’m talking about persecution by government. A shop owner has a first amendment right to decline service to a gay couple, an interracial couple, or any other arrangement that offends their conscience. If the public is offended by that, they have every right to boycott.

                      As far as your comment that most of society sees these shop owners who decline to serve gay couples as bigots, I think you are falsely assuming Americans feel as passionately about homosexuality as they do about race. It’s simply not the case:

                      http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765636407/New-Mexico-photographer-loses-gay-marriage-case.html?pg=all

                      85% of Americans believe the photographer had the right to decline business from a gay couple. Sure, some of those 85% might still think the photographers are bigots, they just believe in economic freedom. However, you would never see a poll where 85% of Americans think it’s ok to refuse to serve blacks at a lunch counter.

                      Sorry Paul. There’s no question Americans are becoming more sympathetic to homosexuals rights. But don’t believe for a minute they feel the same way about homosexuality as they do about race. Go out into the heartland of America and boycotts against shop owners who refuse to bake gay wedding cakes aren’t going to get too far. In fact, such attempts often result in a backlash as happened with Chick Fil A.

                    • Paul McGuire

                      I wonder if those same 85% would say the same thing about bakeries though. The photographer issue is somewhat distinct but the majority of the examples in the article are bakeries, which should be a clear cut you don’t have a first amendment right to decline service. I agree that the issue of photographers is a bit more of a close one though I still think The Supreme Court if it agrees to hear the case will say the same thing.

                      And yes Chick Fil A boycotts resulted in a backlash but nobody there was refusing service to same-sex couples or gay customers. There was a backlash because people supported the first amendment rights of the owner to voice his beliefs in a public forum.

                      All of the bakers listed here specifically refused to make cakes for a same-sex wedding, which I think would get a bit less support from the general public than Chick Fil A.

                      And sure anti-gay bigotry is not yet treated the same way as racist bigotry but it is quickly becoming closer. If these boycotts will just fizzle out then why is the existence of boycotts an example of persecution? Shouldn’t they just be harmless Facebook petitions that you ignore?

                    • Steve Frank

                      Persecution has to do with motive. Most reasonable people can look at that photographer in NM and understand that they were not acting out of hate or malice but were simply following their religious beliefs. And the intentional legal pursuit of this photographer by the gay litigant (when they could have easily sought another photographer) is an example of persecution. Now if a gay person went to the grocery store to buy food and they were refused, most Americans would not be sympathetic to the store owner and I wouldn’t categorize a boycott of his store as persecution because it would be clear he was not acting out of any religious principle but simply malice. Most Americans are not rigid idealogues. They have nuanced views of these matters based on presumption of motives of all parties. Facebook and the Internet are another matter since it is very easy to spread false and/or misleading information that has not been vetted for accuracy. That can result in boycotts where people have not heard the whole story.

                    • Steve Frank

                      Oh and I should also add, “anti-gay” bigotry will never be treated the same as racial bigotry. As hard as the media has tried to create revisionist gay martyr mythologies like they did with Matthew Sheperd, most people understand that homosexuals have not suffered in either degree or magnitude anything close to what African Americans endured under times of slavery. I’m not saying homosexuals have never been treated bad. It’s just not comparable to anything blacks have suffered because of past racism. Americans just don’t feel the same guilt over the way gays have been treated compared to how blacks were treated.

                    • Tim

                      Does “boycotting” include the right of other stores to refuse to do business with the bakery? Say, the grocery store in town refuses to sell them flower and frosting and sugar and eggs and such because of their refusal to bake for gay weddings?? Is that ok?

                      In my system, it would NOT be. The grocery store may disagree, but they can’t stop a guy from going in and buying a bag of flour just because they don’t like that it will be used in an “exclusionary” business.

                      So there are pros and cons for the baker in each of our systems. In mine, he can’t refuse to bake a generic cake for someone who wants it, but he also can’t be denied ingredients by the grocery store himself. In yours, he can refuse, but he can also be refused. I think the latter (ie, your principle) is actually a much greater existential threat to his business.

            • Valentin

              If a Businessman is providing to certain people according to his will then it is automatically private whether the public likes it or not it is his business.

          • Valentin

            Thank you for the voice of freedom some people sound no different than Stalin when they claim that it is right to that a Businessman can’t run his business freely with his discretion.

      • Crusader for Christ

        “Does the gay baker have a right to refuse to offer their services for that?”
        In today’s world with today’s courts, the answer is YES and the courts, public “opinion”, and Emperor Obama would back them.

        Virulent anti-Catholicism is alive and well and kicking today. I fully expect Catholic churches and clergy will be ordered to marry gay/lesbian couples before Emperor Obama leaves the throne. The sad part is, fully 95% of the churches will obey (not wanting lawsuits or jail time).

        My worst fear is that Pope Francis will use such an event to fundamentally change Catholic teachings and tradition to match the Protestant ways. Martin Luther wins…..

        • Steve Frank

          I’d say Satan wins….I don’t think Martin Luther would have been a big fan of same sex marriage…

    • TheodoreSeeber

      “At the end of the day, discrimination is discrimination.”

      And this is religious discrimination by gays against Christians. The two cultures are simply not compatible, and the clash shows the lie that multiculturalism is strength.

      • Crusader for Christ

        DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

        We have a winner!!!!!!!

      • Valentin

        It’s funny how these people focus so much on discrimination before they even consider who is right it shows how people have sold out to the false notion of tolerance while disregarding justice, integrity, and reverence to the true God.

    • Adam__Baum

      When a man and a woman present themselves to contract wedding services, you have no idea whether or not they are free to marry, even if you know them personally. When two individuals of the same sex present themselves to contract the same services, res ipsa loquitar.

      • tom

        …or is it collateral espousal?

  • james

    these are all extreme examples and the extremism on both sides continue

    • Augustus

      When the demands of gay extremists become the norm via the lawless impositions of courts, will you continue to downplay the threat?

      • tom

        When our crooked courts order the murder of innocent babies and the preservation of the life of convicted murderers, the handwriting’s on the wall. Disarmament is their next logical step as Justice Goldberg declares the Second Amendment “obsolete”.

        • ericpinola

          Then they can come and take it.

      • Adam__Baum

        When is now. Modern “jurisprudence” is largely the art of issuing prosaic missives that can no longer said to be the interpretation of law. Anthony Kennedy is among the most egregious practitionary of this dark art.

    • lifeknight

      OUTED

    • TheodoreSeeber

      The difference being one side is in keeping with natural law, and the other side isn’t.

    • thomistica

      In your view, if a supporter of SSM objects to traditional marriage, should they be required by law to photograph traditional (man-woman) marriages? Should they be penalized if they refuse to? Just asking.

  • lifeknight

    Wow! Looks like Crisis is on the gay blogging agenda today! Congrats, Mr. Beale, for receiving your first three comments from the gay lobby!

    The Truth is that the Church should be readying for the attack. Trying to normalize sodomy and lesbianism is NOT going to happen. Natural law will triumph, but in the end the Church will be sued for sacramental unions and the real social martyrdom will begin. At least we will know which bishops and priests are true to the Faith….and the Pope, for that matter, will HAVE to talk about the issues.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I normally agree- but the sad fact is this. Normalization of sodomy and lesbianism has already happened, just like normalization of contraception and divorce before it, and normalization of pedophilia is currently happening. Natural law will triumph in the end, but not without civil war.

      • lifeknight

        True! At least we would know what we are fighting for! ( Sounds like a song from the Vietnam war protests)

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Our children will regret the fact we didn’t fight harder when rich men from Hollywood start paying kidnappers for younger and younger girls. But we didn’t start this fire, we just failed to fight it. The first battle came long before we were born.

      • tom

        It must be settled on the streets. there is no refuge in the Constitution or any of the 3 branches of gubmint. This is a nation of men, not laws now.

      • ericpinola

        Civil war it shall be then…the sooner the better in my book.

        • tom

          Let’s start with a peaceful Marching Day…once a month after church… where a ton of families walk down B’Way or Main street in your town. The Obamaites will attack you and you have the right of self-defnse.

    • Darren Szwajkowski

      Pope Francis has been talking about the issues. It’s just the liberal media does not publish them. Plus, Pope Francis, like he said, does not need to say it every minute of every day. His first concern, and rightly, is about Christ. Everything else is secondary.

    • Tim

      This seems rather hysterical to me. Surely you know that churches are STILL allowed to refuse to preform an interracial marriage, to exclude members of whatever race, etc etc. Civil Rights legislation about race regarding the state and public accommodations did NOT apply to religious groups and religious ceremonies, and there is no evidence to suggest it will be made to do so in the future regarding sexual orientation.

      • ericpinola

        TIM – I believe they have Hate Crime laws in place in most states now that could take a stand against the Church, individuals, or private businesses.

        Horrible piece of law.

        • Adam__Baum

          Only in the secular-left mindset is it somehow worse to kill somebody while calling them a name than doing it silently.

          • Tim

            As horrible as an isolated case of individual murder may be, OF COURSE it is worse if it is part of perpetuating a system of structural privilege and injustice.

            • thisoldspouse

              “A system of structural privilege and injustice.”

              A concocted definition by those deviants who would benefit by the definition.

              • Tim

                It’s not that mysterious. Straights, being 95% of the population have power over gays. It isn’t a two way street. Gays are disproportionately disadvantaged in all sorts of areas straights don’t even have to give a second thought to, even apart from any question of immorality. The same is true for blacks vis a vis whites, women vis a vis men, etc

                • Art Deco

                  Rubbish. Supervisors have power over their staff. In a much more attenuated way, landlords have some over their tenants. Loan officers have it over applicants. Honestly, conceptualizing this as ‘straights’ having power over ‘gays’ would only be done if one accepted the prism through which self-centered homosexuals looked at the world around them. Bad idea.

                  Gays are disproportionately disadvantaged in all sorts of areas straights don’t even have to give a second thought to

                  Since you did not name any, I will assume you have not given it any thought either.

                  • Tim

                    Gay youth are disproportionately bullied, homeless (kicked out of their houses), and gays are denied employment, access to housing, etc etc.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      So are kids with red hair, freckles, braces.

                      Maybe if they were allowed to develiop instead of having predators box them into the category “gay”, this wouldn’t be an issue.

                    • Tim

                      I know of no statistics suggesting that the homeless/runaway population is disproportionately red-headed, freckled, or orthodontically brace-ed.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      I’m pretty sure there’s a lot you know nothing of, but thanks for the admission.

                    • tom

                      White men are passed over for EEO purposes all the time.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      I wish we were merely “passed over”. I love the phrase “protected class”. I’m not in one, so I guess I’m unprotected.

                    • Art Deco

                      Tim, youngsters with a certain vulnerability or je-ne-sais-quoi or set of personal accidents are bullied. A disproportionate share may be addled by homosexuality or develop homosexuality triggered by the bullying. Kids who make a public point of their homosexuality are bullied; prior to about 1985, the young just did not do that; ya pays ya money and ya takes ya choice You are not going to create a society of the young free of discord and hazing. You can merely contain its more disagreeable effects. And, no, juvenile homosexuals are not special.

                      The homeless in the country might number 700,000 and are amply populated with people with schizophreniform disorders. The data on this population is very soft and I do not think you are able to substantiate the point that that population is disproportionately homosexual. (Actually, I think the data would substantiate the point that male homosexuals have higher disposable incomes for a variety of reasons).

                      In a free society, people properly have the discretion to determine with whom they will associate on an enduring basis. You insist on making a public point of your homosexuality, that can have costs.

                    • ericpinola

                      I believe that Nature is the best proof that Homosexuality is a flawed lifestyle. Nature does not support the homosexual lifestyle, it removes it from nature every time, because it does not work.

                      (I guess you could say unnatural:)

                      If you believe in God (creator of Heaven & Earth) then this has already been stated too. Acting upon the desire is a sin / unnatural / against nature……having the desire is NOT. We are all tempted with MANY desires that are not healthy.

                      It is a sin, no different than me judging someone, or stealing, or any other sin, but acting on it is where nature steps in and stops it.

                      I would look at being a homosexual as a cross that has to be picked up and carried each day and not yielded to. I have crosses like that with my heterosexuality, my anger, and many others. I do well with all of them 99% of the time. The times i do not, I take advantage of the Sacrament of Confession, and start over again with picking up my cross.

                      BUT to give in to and and accept something so blatantly UNNATURAL (in case you would like to leave God out of it) would be a shortcut to thinking at best. To not only embrace it, but to push it upon the while of society is nothing less than an act of violence against life, nature, and mankind.

                      When you see the truth of it in this manner, does it surprise anyone if there is a backlash against such lifestyle choices when it comes to society or mankind as a whole?

                • tom

                  Just rely on the “natural law”.

            • Art Deco

              Quit with the talking points and unpack that. Draw a flow chart for us all, box to box, which connects “insult’ to “structural privilege” and “injustice”. Define “structural privilege”. Indicate what is “unjust”. What would be specifically ‘structural’ or ‘unjust’ vis a vis the homosexual population.

          • thisoldspouse

            Regarding the broadly defined, blank check “hate crimes” language, what is the case if a man is physically assaulted by a homosexual and lawfully retaliates but in the process calls the homosexual a “damned faggot” while he punches him, breaking his nose?

            Does the defender get charged? Somehow, I think the bazaar world we find ourselves would condemn him.

            • tom

              Oh, yeah. a kind DA might give him a plea with probation.

          • tom

            They do have an agenda. Those laws were passed across the former West about a decade ago…methodically….in every nation and every state. Then, they’re only used against whites. A recent example is the stabbing of a white soldier by a black in Washington state who was yelling white cracker. “Not hate”, sayeth our elites.

            • Tim

              There is no equivalence. I’m not saying blacks can’t have racial biases of their own, but only one group is structurally disadvantaged. A crime targeting a white person as such may be bad, but it’s not really the same thing as the other way around, as it can’t possibly be construed as helping to perpetuate a particular racial regime because blacks, as a group, are not the ones who have the privilege in the first place. You can only take advantage of racial privilege if you belong to the group that has it.

              • Art Deco

                Well, you gave the game away.

              • Adam__Baum

                “A crime targeting a white person as such may be bad, but it’s not really the same thing as the other way around, as it can’t possibly be construed”

                Even though the biggest problem is “black on black” crime, on the chance some gang-banger “pops a cap in your *** “. comfort yourself with the construction of the crime and your structural priviledge.

                God, if you only know how stupid that really is.

            • ericpinola

              Or the Fort Hood Shooting…no Hate crime or War Crime…or Terrorist attack.

      • Adam__Baum

        Well then we should just thank the state because it has seen fit to grant us this exemption, you know, as long as we keep our peculiar thoughts in the catacombs.

      • Steve Frank

        The government will probably never try to force churches to marry gay couples. Even a liberal judge would have a hard time twisting the Constitution enough to justify that. What government will come after eventually is the tax exempt status of any church that is guilty of “hate speech”. And if that happens, some churches will simply go out of business.

        • Art Deco

          The government will probably never try to force churches to marry gay couples.

          Chuckles. There ain’t no limits anymore Steve. Half a generation ago, Robert Bork offered that successive courts had destroyed constitutional law as a serious intellectual subdiscipline. They have no shame, and are, in point of fact, quite pretentious. You cannot predict the depths of their abuse and fraud. They have not hit bottom yet and may not before it gets rough and ugly.

          • ICCC1978

            Those who REALLY believe the message of the Church and its mission will support it, whether there is a tax exempt status or not. In some parts of the world, they meet in house churches. Some churches started in houses, and some can return to them too. It’s going to be a “hot time in the old house tonight” for some politicians and judges getting fried by the opinions of their fellow congregants. Some will never see the light until they feel the heat. Yes, it could very much get rough and ugly. Those who mean business with God will tough it out.

        • thisoldspouse

          It’s already happening in the U.K. And before you say, “but that’s not America,” please let me point out that homosexual activist incessantly point out what is happening in other countries (redefining marriage) to “prove” what is “inevitable” in the U.S.

          • Steve Frank

            Yes, but the UK does not have separation of church and state. The Church of England is basically an arm of the state. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe the US government is going to come after the churches. But I think they’ll do so through the back door….taking away tax exempt statuses, arresting ministers for “hate speech”, things of that nature. Who knows, anything can happen. I just think back door attempts are far more likely than bold government mandates that all churches must marry gay couples.

            • slainte

              The state’s coercive powers enforced against Churches may be more effective at reversing the division among Christians and promoting unity than any exercise in Ecumenism or the New Evangelization. We can all hang together or hang separately.

              • Art Deco

                Maybe still, just. Most of these mainline clergy will be easily rolled by the Regime.

            • Paul McGuire

              Taking away tax exempt status I can see happening. It happened before when certain churches ran schools that insisted on prohibiting students from engaging in inter-racial relationships. The schools complained that they were following their religion so it was against the first amendment to take away their tax exempt status but they lost.

              • Tim

                Maybe. But the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that religious institutions will be tax exempt. That’s a privilege given because the government believes in the general salutary effect of religions and charities. But it is not essential to the notion of non-establishment, religious freedom, or non-interference. Non- interference does not mean you have to get special privileges regarding taxes that other organizations don’t.

                • Art Deco

                  A privilege?

                  A corporation is a legal person. You might say that limited liability is a privilege. The thing is, a philanthropy has no shareholders and no earnings to distribute. Whether it be property taxes or corporate income taxes, it is an assessment on their real and abstract endowments. Given that congregations rely on donations and have modest income flows, the power to tax is the power to destroy. That would be a reality, not a rhetorical flourish.

                  • Tim

                    Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m generally in favor of religious institutions having tax-exempt status. But, I’m just saying it’s not some sort of absolute principle, constitutionally or otherwise. Sometimes in extreme cases, the State decides that a certain religious group is causing more problems than it is being salutary, and at that point it is under no obligation to make it easy for it to succeed. Treating it like any other “small business” is not some sort of persecution or deprivation of “rights” in such cases. They can’t put some sort of special burden on them, but it is not a special burden to take away a privilege and treat you like any other group. Some religions fail financially. It is not up to the government to go out of its way to prop them up financially. In fact, some might argue that exempting them from taxation is already dangerously close to being equivalent to positive government funding of religion (ie, a negative funding, a “funding” through not taking away what they would have a right to take away but choose not to in the case of religions and charities).

                    • Adam__Baum

                      “But, I’m just saying it’s not some sort of absolute principle, constitutionally or otherwise.”

                      You are wrong.

                    • Tim

                      The First Amendment says nothing about taxes, and the Supreme Court has explicitly allowed the government to take away tax exempt status from certain religious organizations in certain cases for certain reasons.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      You ought to brush up on Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, and Korematsu v. the U.S, before brandishing the SCOTUS as a font of rectitude.

                      Tell me about how they took away the “blighted” Kelo’s home so the city of New London could cut a skeezy deal with some developer that really, really wanted it – and how today it’s a vacant lot.

                      And I haven’t even mentioned Roe.

                      As an aside, of course the First Amendment says nothing about taxes, it was covered elsewhere, until those limits were erased 100 years ago, supposedly to provide adequate revenue-and here we are 17 trillion dollars in the hole.

                    • Tim

                      It’s not a font of right or wrong, but it does get to say what is Constitutional or not (the Constitution itself is not a font of right or wrong either, btw!)

                      But constitutionality is the only argument you can have. Because certainly there is nothing in the Deposit of Faith saying “The Church has a general right not to pay the State taxes on Her temporal property or material wealth”

                    • Adam__Baum

                      As long as we bow to Marbury vs. Madison, sure. Constitutionally, Congress is supposed to determine the jurisdiction of the courts, not the Courts, but since Congress is dispropotionately lawyers, I suppose we’ll continue to like in the kakistocracy.

                    • Crusader for Christ

                      “…constitutionality is the only argument you can have.” Wrong Answer. The only argument is what does the SCOTUS think? It is in first year law school that students are emphatically taught the *Marbury v Madison* decision, you know the one, “The Law is what I Say It Is.” Constitution Be Damned. So if SCOTUS decides Catholicism falls outside the protection of the First Amendment, so it is written, so shall it be.

                    • ericpinola

                      I would love if the Church (Catholic) would get rid of the tax exempt muzzle that binds her. She would be a very large thorn in both sides of the political theater we have here in America.

                • Adam__Baum

                  It is not a privilege.

                  Beyond the fact that a church is not a for profit enterprise, taxation is a part of that “wall of separation” the secular statists trot out to suppress the religiously informed conscience.

                  Just another reason to kill the 100 year idiocy that is the federal income tax.

                  • Art Deco

                    There is nothing wrong with properly structured income taxes. It gets troublesome when you levy taxes on legal persons whose employees pay taxes and (if they be commercial companies) whose shareholders pay them as well. Limited liability is a privilege extended, but it is a bit rum to have stiff charges for that for philanthropies subsisting on donations. You cannot really organize a philanthropy as a proprietorship.

                  • Art Deco

                    A more severe problem would be the levy of uncompensated property taxes on church buildings and grounds. Churches do not have much income flow and are real-estate intensive businesses. You would only do that if you wanted to shut them down.

                    • Tim

                      Then why are property taxes okay for an individual citizen??

                    • Art Deco

                      I do not care for them much myself.

                      Much of the value of the drain from property tax payments can be calculated by prospective home buyers antecedently. It is simply factored into your expected housing costs. A residential house will change hands about every seven years in any case, with households adjusting their housing consumption according to circumstances.

                      Needless to say, church buildings are very unlike residential housing. They are far less fungible and change hands very infrequently. I grew up around the corner of one which has been in the same spot since 1829. They were constructed and have been maintained in circumstances where tax payments are not part of the expected expenditures.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Who said they were? The biggest proponent of real estate taxes in my state are achool teachers unions, who don’t want their revenue stream to fluctuate. Does the masthead say for the teacher union faithful?

                    • Crusader for Christ

                      Property taxes are NOT OK anywhere, anytime. They were inspired by Marx & Engle’s “Communist Manifesto”, to wit:

                      1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (property tax)

                      2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (done)

                      3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. (inheritance tax)

                      4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (close)

                      5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (can you say “Federal Reserve Bank?)

                      6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (working on it)

                      7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (working on it)

                      8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (how about just standing armies? )

                      9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. (working on it)

                      10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production. (done)

                      Property tax is a “possession” type tax. That means, to possess for useful purposes, you must pay a tax or fee to the government or lose possession of the item. It establishes the Government as the true and only owner of the item. Pure evil in a supposedly “capitalist” society.

                    • Art Deco

                      Buddy, land taxes are antique, and certainly pre-dated 1848. I think it is doubtful that any sort of tax has a longer pedigree. Poll taxes, perhaps.

                    • Art Deco

                      I should say ‘real-estate intensive concerns’

                  • Valentin

                    Yeah income tax is no different than theft.

                • Art Deco

                  Not essential.

                  I do not think you are going to find a point in Anglo-American history where it has been the common practice to tax the property of philanthropies. It would be an innovation meant to destroy those agencies. The practice long antedates the practice of routine issue of corporate charters.

              • Art Deco

                The Regime expects the dhimmi to pay the jiziya.

                • Crusader for Christ

                  DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

                  We have another winner!!!!!!!

              • JessicaSideways

                They should remove the tax exemption from churches when those churches promote hate and bigotry, as those churches are doing obvious harm to society and act contrary to the common good.

            • ICCC1978

              Tax exempt status of churches:
              The Amish have no organized church buildings- they use a rotating round of families homes within a “district” inside a colony to conduct their services. The hosting family is responsible for feeding the congregants and their horses. I live on the edge of an Amish colony and see it every other Sunday( they meet for worship every other Sunday, visit relatives the “off” Sundays). There are 4 districts in our local colony, so the traveling is shortened considerably.
              “Hate Speech”:
              Canada has laws on hate speech, and 1 preacher went to jail for reading a scripture concerning homosexuality. We may very well have to pay a price for what we believe. It would be advisable to seek legal consul to avoid lawsuits or jail, yet get your message out. One campus preacher was advised to call abortion “selfishness”, not murder, for that form of murder is legal in the USA. Calling someone a murderer when the law says it legal is called slander and libel. We must be “Wise as a serpent, and harmless as doves”(Jesus).

        • tom

          One more Trotskyite on the Supreme Court and it’ll happen.

          Roberts may be becoming one now.

          • Art Deco

            Big bets on the following: these people are bourgeois who serve the interests of their kind. They manifest no interest in generic wage earners and their interest in the slum and trailer park population is a function of the employment opportunities for aspirant social workers in having such people as clients.

            Manuel Azana, the bobblehead who presided over the Spanish Republic after 1935, offered this excuse for the closure of every secondary school in the country during one of the ministries he headed (such schools having been operated by religious orders): “It is a matter of public health!”. Azana ran a bourgeois Republican party; he made use of reds as allies, but he was not among them. He is the antecedent to the ghastly Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

      • Art Deco

        I do not know how you missed the controversy over the content of insurance coverage last summer, but oh well.

    • dfsgfdsg

      Trying to normalize sodomy and lesbianism is NOT going to happen

      It already is normal you fucking idiot.

      > Natural law will triumph,

      Gay shit is completely natural just look at dolphins. They fuck everything.

  • Steve Frank

    ” religious liberty has been shoved aside to serve a higher priority—sexual liberty, Sprigg says.”

    Sprigg’s comment is not really accurate. I’m afraid the truth is even more outrageous. Nobody’s sexual liberty is being infringed when a baker refuses to offer their services for a gay wedding. The only liberty being infringed upon in these types of cases is the Christian’s religious liberty. The gay person is entirely free to continue on in their “sexual liberty” unmolested regardless of whether they get their cake from the Christian. The more accurate statement is that “religious liberty has been shoved aside to server a higher priority…the right of homosexuals to force all others to celebrate their sexual orientation”. That makes the whole thing an even greater travesty. It’s hard to believe that the American experiment began with men coming to these shores to escape government tyranny, particular in matters related to the free practice of religion. And here we are almost 3 centuries later with government forcing people to act in violation of their religious principles, all so those with a disordered sexual orientation can feel good about themselves. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves..

    • tom

      I think they’re sharpening their swords, ready to stand up for America if we won’t.

    • Paul

      You are correct. This looks like the imposition of a new state religion, which all must believe or suffer the consequences. Disagree with the dogmas and your ability to make a living will be put to an end. Well, the early Christians faced death in the arena rather than submit empty sacrifices to pagan gods. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

      • ericpinola

        My sword is sharp enough to defend my family against these abominations to God. Home School all the way. Also remember we are the Super Majority still and “they” are still less than 10%. We need to stand up and stop this sinful foolishness NOW.

        • Paul McGuire

          Gay, lesbian, and bisexuals may be a small percentage of the population but the number of straight people who support same-sex marriage and similar rights for the LGB community is much greater. If there wasn’t much support then the online petitions mentioned in this article wouldn’t be a big deal.

          • Bob

            If 100% of straight people supported same sex marriage it still wouldn’t make SSM and homosexual acts morally licit.

            • Hana

              Actually, trying to stop an entire group of people who aren’t hurting anyone is the immoral thing to do. We simply want to live our lives the same as you do without being treated as inferior beings. That is not, in any way, asking too much.

              • prayerisouronlyhope

                Hana, did you read the story?

              • jcmeg56

                Hanna, you obviously did not read the story. Your comment is non-responsive.

              • Louis

                I hope you mean that Christians should be allowed to live their lives as they choose and it is they who are not harming anyone. Other options exist for those who live a gay life, no one was preventing them from having cake or photos. By contrast gays were hurting Christians by bankrupting them, forcing them out of business and harassing them.

                • BenjaminLatrobe

                  You FOOLS: “You reap what you sow”. Stop discriminating against Gays & other minorities and you won’t be taken to court and fined, etc. BTW all of these people with their so-called “Religious Freedoms” violated have broken the law. “HATE” is not protected by one’s religious faith. This is a Constitutionally run society; not a religious right society. The Constitution was written to protect the populace from people like you. Your HATRED of Gays is totally irrelevant to everyone else but you. The Constitution will not support religion sanctioned discrimination & homophobia. The Constitution does not recognize or tolerate your HATRED. Homosexuals are U.S. Citizens; not abominations (look to the mirror for an abomination). Your so-called biblical laws do not trump the Constitution’s laws. “HATE” makes people “UGLY”. It’s your choice to learn the facts and put your prejudices away once & for all. Or wallow in your hatred forever…!

                  • Shackra

                    Homosexuality is a utterly disorder behavior, and must be rejected by everyone. It is hurting you, and @BenjaminLatrobe:disqus you will find out such truth one way or the another.

                    • JessicaSideways

                      No, homosexuality is not a disorder or aberrant behaviour – bigotry is. Bigotry needs to be rejected by everyone and it looks like society is moving towards this end. Hopefully, homophobia will become as classless and disgusting as racism is.

                    • Barry L.

                      What is an “utterly disorder behaviour” Professor Shackra?

                    • Cules

                      Fuck you you judgMENTAL bigot.

                    • MapDark

                      yeah , HMO’s haven,t been considered homosexuality to be a health problem for DECADES. because it has never been.

                    • EFPynn
                    • Kim Washburn

                      homosexuality exists in more than 450 species in nature. It is perfectly natural. Only your version of fairy tales says any different. Science proves you wrong every time

                    • AugustineThomas

                      Murder exists in every society.
                      Is it natural?

                    • Kim Washburn

                      I see you deleted the comment where you asked me to name one. You must have used that little google engine and found out for yourself I was right. Murder is a false equivelancy. We were speaking about sexuality. Here you go in case you want to read more…http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

                    • AugustineThomas

                      I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Crisis may have deleted my comment because they’re afraid of seeming offensive to people with homosexual perversion in any way and I’m a bit blunt.
                      You do understand the purpose of an analogy right? You use an extreme case to show someone the absurdity of a less irrational, often pseudo-intellectual stance–such as the idea that homosexuality is natural just because some animals share that perversion. Many animals also eat their young, is that natural? See what I did there?

                    • jacobhalo

                      Thinking and rationalizing only exists in one species.

                  • Jr

                    The gays are the ones trying to force everybody else to accept tier life style and that won’t never happen.

                    • Cules

                      You will die soon and no one will care about you in a hundred years. Stop sweating the small stuff and we know you watch lesbian porn you sanctimonious creep.

                    • SteveSando

                      And here is where you are wrong, Gays aren’t going anywhere. Our numbers seem to be constant through time. Other than making you a bully, your harassment and judgement have done nothing. Gay people exist and you being cruel and hurtful doesn’t make them any less gay.

                    • Valentin

                      If gays are so stable why do they commit suicide when they are bullied? Seriously loads of kids get bullied and don’t commit suicide and when a gay guy gets bullied and commits suicide it’s the bullying that’s the problem? I think it’s a huge lack of stability that is the issue I mean every time I was bullied at school I didn’t think to murder myself.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      OMG REALLY? You have got to be the stupidest person to comment on this whole thread. And thats saying something.

                    • Valentin

                      I made an argument based on the fact that some people give up on life when they get bullied and I am claiming that those people are less stable than people who don’t kill themselves after getting bullied. You did not make a single point to counter my argument, all you did was call me stupid which makes you look like an asshole.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      perhaps you should be asking about the CAUSE of the low self esteem. In religion, people feel they are RIGHT. even if they are beaten and tortured, they believe they will be rewarded in heaven. Homosexuals are raised particularliny “Christian” homes to think it is wrong to be gay. That there is something fundamentally WRONG with them. It’s not like they can just switch sexuality like you could switch religion if you felt your religion was wrong. You are who you are. It seems like a trap, no way out. many gay people lose friends, jobs, even family over their sexuality. It is easy to see life as completely hopeless if you dont have a good support network. Also, trying to pretend you are not gay and hide it from everyone is UNBELIEVABLY stressful. this is why gay teens have the highest rate of suicide of any group. the truth is, it’s wrong to hate someone just because of who they love.

                    • Valentin

                      How many times do I have to say it, coercing someone to screw around and convincing them to sodomize is not love in fact it is degrading. You pretend that somehow society is dominated by Catholics but guess what I have been in public school and guess what most people are much more comfortable yelling and bullying Catholic guys like me where as it’s almost taboo to make fun of a gay guy. Don’t fool yourself the problem people have with gays is that they are drawn to something perverted not because of who they are. I have known guys who might have a gay sounding lisp but have acted very wholesome and were not stressed out about it in fact I bet the guys in prison getting sodomized every other day are probably more stressed out than a so called closet gay as if it’s a bad thing to avoid sodomy.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Say it as many times as you like. You are still wrong. If you just read what you wrote you will see how hateful, uninformed, and bigoted you are. The Catholic Church would be far better served to clean up it’s problem with pedophiles and their enablers than to worry about what happens between two people who love each other. And as for making fun of…It shouldn’t be ok to make fun of either, but the fact that you think one is more deserving than the other simply speaks volumes about your character.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Truth is truth, whether you accept it or not. Parents who tell their children that homosexuality is an abomination are speaking the truth (Leviticus20:13). God also tells children to honor and obey their parents. Perhaps Mom and Dad have it right?

                    • ICCC1978

                      Let’s look at another area: temptation to sin, in this case, homosexuality. As Jesus was tempted in the wilderness YET DID NOT GIVE IN, so it is with homosexuality(and other sins as well). The devil puts the thoughts in their head. It is our *responsibility to reject* these thoughts.
                      Fisherman use bait to hook their prey. No bait, no bite, no fish! Wrong bait, no bite, no fish! Right bait, get bite, hopefully a fish!
                      For those in the homosexual lifestyle, it is a dime-a -dozen reasons for engaging in it: Burned out on the opposite sex, I got kissed by someone and I liked it, etc., etc. Did you get hurt by someone? Reaction to emotions open some people to making wrong conclusions and making wrong decisions. Jesus can help you through it and deliver from bad decisions, if you want it. The decision is up to you.

                    • Valentin

                      Good explanation.

                    • ICCC1978

                      I don’t think so. Valentin is making valid points, but you attack with insults. Now, that is bullying. But he is a big boy( or girl- I really don’t know his gender. I bet his doctor knew when they were born).

                    • ICCC1978

                      I was bullied too in school because I was short. That didn’t make me want to commit suicide. That made me want to stay away from them.

                    • Valentin

                      I wasn’t bullied that much in school but at the last day of 7th grade I did wind up in a fight and got beat up, I ended up leaving the school but that was primarily because my family and I were moving anyway. My friend has a shirt printing business and one of the shirts he prints says “short people punch ass” so don’t let that get to your head being short has its advantages and disadvantages just like being tall (I can’t tell you how many things I have hit my head on lol.).

                    • Valentin

                      If you put 50 gay guys on a fertile island, gave them supplies to build housing and farm crops and enough clothes for 5 generations of men and you checked up on the island 200 hundred years later you will find no one. Face it the so called “gay community” relies on everyone else to survive.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      “won’t never happen” means that it will. (look up “double negatives”)

                  • jomotro

                    Christians don’t hate. That is a red herring you people throw out there. If you actually read the Constitution, it mentions nothing about aberrant sexual behavior, but it does guarantee the freedom of religion.

                    • Karma

                      jomotro:
                      “…but it does guarantee the freedom of religion.” My religion hold gays sacred and holy. You are allowed to honor whatever gods you want. You may NOT use it to discriminate.

                      As to x-tians don’t hate: what a crock of bs. X-tians hate. Chritians who use religion to force others or deny others services other than religious services are no better than the Taliban. In fact, they are pretty much the same. Keep casting stones, my dear. They will come back to hit you in the head. So sayeth Jesus.
                      And abberant behavior? It is in the Bible belt of America we find more animal porn, more kiddie porn, more rape porn than anywhere else in America. Porntube, google, the FCC, and FBI files show this.
                      How about instead of focusing on what two consenting adult do, you focus more on what Jesus said to do?
                      Also, you people think more about gay sex than I do, and I’m gay. Make one wonder if you do not the urge, but are hurting yourself trying to suppress the desires you were born with. Blow down that closet door, and be free.

                    • jomotro

                      So ridiculous this is not even worth a comment.

                    • ICCC1978

                      It is ridiculous, but for those who read it ,they need not be persuaded by false contentions and error-ridden logic.
                      First, Karma, you are welcome to your beliefs, even if it is contrary to the Scriptures, making yourself another god( violation of the 1st commandment). God does not approve of homosexuality(Genesis 19:Sodom and Gomorrah) ,
                      (1 Corinthians 6:9-11: effeminate-such WERE some of you),etc.
                      Secondly, Christians=Taliban? Really? Muslims hang homosexuals(e.g. Saudi Arabia). Muslims don’t tolerate any homosexuals, etc. Have you any evidence of Americans Christians hanging or stoning homosexuals?
                      Thirdly, Jesus said

                    • jacobhalo

                      Jesus said to the women, go and sin no more.

                    • SteveSando

                      I find your sexual behavior aberrant but I’m not about to tell you what to do in bed.

                    • AugustineThomas

                      Cowards like you are why we’re losing.
                      You make false equivalencies. You leave your children to the wolves, as long as no one can call you a bigot!
                      Hell will be just as miserable, even if no one calls you bigot.

                    • S Stes

                      Ya, we heterosexuals enjoy all kind of sex. Anal, oral and …….
                      We get to look down our nose at those enjoying the same ……

                      Oh wait you were talking about gays…..

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      Jesus never commanded His followers to impose His teachings via civil statutes, so the whole argument that gays being allowed to marry is somehow an attack on someone else’s belief is the real red herring. As is the argument that bakers have to approve someone else’s morality before they can bake them a cake.

                    • Valentin

                      Why do you think that Christ said “Those who are not with me are against me”?

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      I really don’t think he was discussing wedding cakes.

                    • Valentin

                      But it was a very broad statement that includes the way each and everyone of us use what we have been given, that includes wheat, sugar, eggs as well as our genitals.

                    • AugustineThomas

                      What do you think he meant when he said anyone who violates one letter of the Law, which forbids homosexual perversion, will NOT enter the Kingdom?

                    • Kim Washburn

                      And the freedom from religion. Religion’s history is steeped in hate and bloodshed.

                    • Valentin

                      Religion is whatever you have a constant tie to that is what re-ligion means and so technically everyone has a religion even if it is self worship or secularism. Presuming that by religion you mean theism take a look at the atheist Soviet Union who would keep Catholic Priests in re education camps in dark cells where the moment their eyes would shut they would get beat in the face with a rubber hose rendering them in a almost constant state of half consciousness. If you aren’t “religious” where get off implying that bloodshed and hate are wrong? Where do draw that conclusion?

                    • jomotro

                      If you don’t like our Consititution and the freedoms it gives ie. freedom of religion, you are free to move. Perhaps Iran would welcome you.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Religion’s history is also steeped in hate and bloodshed against Christians (e.g. Roman persecutions, present-day martyrdoms by Muslims). We Christians are not calling for executions of homosexuals, so accusations of hate and bloodshed are completely false and libelous.

                    • Kim Washburn
                    • ICCC1978

                      I’m not. I’m just reporting the news: Jesus: “I’ve not come to call the righteous , but sinners to REPENTANCE”. Are you picking up the news?

                  • puffdaddy

                    so you do not believe in freedom of association for private people and private businesses?

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      Let’s see. Was that quote from the KKK or the White Citizens’ Council?

                    • puffdaddy

                      Ok so you do not believe in freedom of association either, you believe in government force. thank you.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      puffdaddy, what have you been smoking? I am in favor of the opposite. I support marriage equality so the last legal prejudice is abandoned and we will have more religious liberty when every church and religion can wed the couples it wishes to wed. That won’t require any church to go against its beliefs the way current law does in some states. Praise God the last legal prejudice fell in two more states this week. Happy, loving couples are getting married in New Mexico and Utah now.

                    • Valentin

                      Don’t fool yourself two gay guys getting ready to jerk themselves off is not the same as a young man and young woman celebrating and getting ready to start a family.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      youve really given that some thought havent you? Hmmmm

                    • Valentin

                      Apparently you won’t respond with any sort of intelligent argument but instead just try to make me look stupid because you don’t agree with me.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      With a comment like that I don’t need to make you look any way at all. Youv’e done a fine job all by yourseld

                    • Kim Washburn

                      No Church is required to marry anyone now. A business discriminating against people is an entirely different matter

                    • ICCC1978

                      ik

                  • AugustineThomas

                    Wait for the backlash, trying to put your satanic perversions on the same pedestal as religious faith.
                    Christians built the West. Homosexuals weaken it.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Fairy tales

                    • AugustineThomas

                      A fairy tale is the idea that you’re a self-creating man-god or else POOF appeared from thin air.
                      Besides, you all have motive.. You don’t want the One True Religion to be right because then it means you will have to change and quit a sin you don’t want to give up.
                      I have a problem with lust myself, so I know I’m in the same boat! (I just don’t want you to let everyone else convince you to celebrate a sin.. I think your love for the woman you live with is a wonderful thing!)

                • JessicaSideways

                  Discrimination is wrong, these Christian business owners chose to discriminate against these people and, as a culture, the majority has decided in many instances that discrimination is wrong.

                  I wonder if you would be equally willing to defend these business owners if they refused to do business with black people…

                  • 65snake

                    …or christians.

                  • jomotro

                    A person’s skin color has nothing to do with their actions. It is natural to be born with black pigmentation if you have parent’s with that gene. It is unnatural to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

                    • Kylie gray

                      It’s unnatural for an animal to own another animal. It’s unnatural to stuff food with steroids and other nonsense. These people don’t choose to be hated or turned away. They choose to love like any other person. Whether being gay is natural or unnatural to you isn’t the point. Turning away a customer because of their “beliefs” is like not highering someone because of their sexual preference. It’s discriminatory. If they were true “Christians” they should know that their faith says to LOVE THE SINNER AND HATE THE SIN. Point to me where the bible says that a gay man can’t have a damn piece of cake? Not only are they misguided in their own faith but they also don’t know the constitution all that well either.

                    • jomotro

                      They can get their cake at another bakery. Why do that have to sue someone for abiding by their deeply held beliefs? Because they want to force society to accept their behavior as if it were normal. Love the sinner and hate the sin is no more Biblical God helps those who help themselves. We are commanded to love, but maybe to some people it is an act of love to not condone sinful behavior because if they did condone it, it may just be loving the sinner right into hell.

                    • Kylie Gray

                      It was once a Christian belief to discriminate against negroes. The belief is not it question. Their action to refuse them service is not in their religion what so ever and that is what is in question. Again as someone above stated: would you still defend them if it was them denying service to a negro? When they went to buy a cake they weren’t asking for understanding or for them to change their views. They simply wanted a cake. Their religion has nothing to do with their business. It is not a sin to let a sinful person but a cake. It is a sin to be gay. They aren’t sinning so why do they care? A customer is a customer. “Those who have not sinned may cast the first stone.” Would they deny a murderer service? Would they deny a liar service?

                    • jomotro

                      Once again, it is not sinful to be born with genes that cause a dark coloring of your skin. On your last two questions, murderers and liars are not trying to get society to accept their sins as normal and protected behavior.

                    • Kylie Gray

                      Once again they didn’t ask for them to accept their sexual preference they just wanted a cake. And because it’s not considered a sin now it was a sin before to be black. The view of being gay as a sin won’t change unlike being a negro did. No one is asking to change their views. They just want to live life normally and uninterrupted like the constitution says that they can.

                    • jomotro

                      No, they aren’t asking them to accept their sexual preference, they are trying to force them to accept it. Why didn’t they just go to another bakery? Because they have an agenda. That’s why. Never, ever heard that being black was a sin. Wow! Where’d you come up with that?

                    • Kylie Gray

                      Because they shouldn’t have to go to another one because it’s DISCRIMINATION. Duh. No where did it say that anyone is forcing acceptance. That is just something formed from you misguided and opinionated ideas

                    • jomotro

                      By not just going to another bakery, they brought a lawsuit to force acceptance of their sins. Why are you so blind to that? This is America. No one has to sell anything to anyone. Ever hear of media refusing to sell advertising space for things they disagree with? Freedom of religion is in the Constitution. Freedom of buying a cake is not.

                    • Kylie Gray

                      If your not selling anything to anyone then you don’t have a business. You can’t just sell someone thing to someone and not the other because that’s discrimination. You must not know what that word means so I suggest you google it. And freedom of religion doesn’t trump anti discriminatory laws. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Why are you so blind to that?

                    • jomotro

                      Yes, you can sell something to one person and not the next. And no, anti-discriminatory laws do not trump the Constitution. The Constitution trumps all laws. If you disagree with it, you have to change the Constitution, not just make up some law. Civics 101. These people are bullies plain and simple. It’s not like they couldn’t buy a cake. They COULD buy a cake. But because this particular bakery held deeply held religious beliefs about homosexual acts, they decided to completely ruin their lives, destroy their livelihood, and even have their lives threatened. Over a cake? Now this couples ability to make a living is destroyed, but this couple still got a cake. This is bullying to an extreme degree. Accept our lifestyle or you will be destroyed vs go a few blocks and buy a cake. Ridiculous!

                    • Neil Ruth

                      Wow, you really are an idiot. I actually cannot be bothered even debating or attempting to educate someone as stupid as you are! I’m a gay man, I’ve represented Scotland in the Commonwealth Games, am an ambassador for a Childrens Chairty and a Disability based Charity as well as being a father to two adopted daughters. I’m a good, honest, moral and hardworking person – I challenge you to compare any good you’ve done? All I can see if you spout hatred.

                      I have viewed your Facebook Joel Troumbly, not only is your attitude abhorrent, but you’re as ugly as your attitude, as is your wife. It’s therefore no surprise you’re as nasty as you words portray. You’re fat, your wife is a beast and your children have no hope with a father like you, distorting their morality. I’d love you to spout your hatred to me in person – we’ll see who would be destroyed,. you pathetic excuse for a human being.

                      The couple whos living was destroyed reserved everything they got for their discriminatory views, as do you – and I’ll do everything I can to eradicate you and everyone else who shares this warped viewpoint.
                      Oh, you may also want to get the herpes on your lip checked out…surprising really, as someone as ugly as you I find perplexing, as I struggle to comprehend how anyone who likes like you can contract an STD giving you’re so ugly.

                    • jomotro

                      You epitomize exactly what the context of this article is about.

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      Sorry, but your liberal atheist philosophy doesn’t trump my religious Christian philosophy. And tolerance means both of us putting up with the other’s instead of trying to stamp it out. So cut it out.

                    • Valentin

                      I can sell my friend a case of beer because I trust him but I wouldn’t sell my case of beer to just anyone. Since when did “discrimination” become a law of God? In fact one of the few problems I have with extreme capitalists in ex communist eastern Europe as well as hit men is how indiscriminate they are about who they are willing to sell things to and who they are willing to kill.

                    • ICCC1978

                      As a retailer, the laws state we must discriminate against……… under-age smokers and under-age drinkers. We can refuse to sell to past shoplifters, troublemakers, and people who have written hot checks to us. We have discouraged those who come into stores and fake injuries to extort money from us(we make them very uncomfortable to stay in our store). Yes, we do discriminate. That’s good business. We also have homosexual couples come in the store to shop. They are treated like everyone else. We want to vomit when they kiss each other. But to make a cake with their homosexual figurines, etc., we don’t have them. Sorry, you’ll have to go down the street.

                    • Valentin

                      I am sorry I meant to imply in my comment that discrimination isn’t an inherent sin, but I phrased my comment in a weird way. It should be edited now though.

                    • Valentin

                      Likewise communists make the mistake of indiscriminately stealing and distributing wealth as if everyone is going to want or need the same things or use them properly.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Very good point!!!

                    • Philip Maguire

                      When did we lose the right to discriminate? If I ask you out on a date should you be able to refuse me on the grounds of my heterosexuality, for example?

                    • Valentin

                      If I am looking for someone to use my product well I am going to discriminate to more or less of a degree for example if I am looking for someone to buy my knife I would deny the knife to someone I know has murderous tendencies and would rather sell it to an outdoors man or housewife or a farmer someone who will use it in a good way. Now if I am selling cake and guy says “I want to buy some so that my buddy and I can celebrate for the time when I put my dick in his rear end” I am going to discriminate because that does not deserve cake.

                    • Valentin

                      If I am born attracted to mass murder or shoving bread in my anus that does not make either one right.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      You are wrong, jomotro. The bible taught that people of African descent are to be subservient to all other races. This was a very popular theology based on the bible’s “curse of Ham” theology. Look it up. And you can’t compare a loving gay couple to murderers unless you want to show people your ignorance.

                    • Valentin

                      can you point to a particular book in the Bible that says this rather than pretending you are a theologian .

                    • ICCC1978

                      Where in the Bible does it say that?

                    • Philip Maguire

                      It was never a Christian belief to discriminate against Negroes.

                      Next you’ll be claiming that eugenics is a Christian Science. It’s not!

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      “It was once a Christian belief to discriminate against negroes[sic].”
                      — Yeah, that’s why Negro Christians used to discriminate against themselves. Wait… no,.. they didn’t and never will, because that isn’t a part of Christian belief. By the way, the Bible *does* instruct Christians to not encourage sin in others, such as by not creating a cake that celebrates homosexual behavior. In the same way, these Christian bakers would not make cakes celebrating murder or lies. Finally, the “stoning” passage in the Bible is for Christians to not try to take action in the name of God against others for the breaking of God’s laws. (Man’s laws are a different situation.) Thus, God is not OK with theocracies, and it is a basis for the Founder’s separation of church and state. Why? Because none of us has the right to try to enforce God’s laws since we are all sinners and have broken God’s law before and will do so again.

                    • Valentin

                      Point to one example of this “Christian belief” because plenty of slaves shipped from the Congo to south Carolina were baptized Catholics and Ethiopia has been Christian for a long time so I don’t know what you mean by “Christian belief”.

                    • karma

                      Yet they made cakes for ‘dog weddings’. Tell me, jomotro, how that holds to ‘Biblical’ beliefs? It is pure hypocrisy not only for them but you as well. That is why they sued: if you claim marriage is based on the Bible, and make a wedding cake for dogs but not 2 humans, that is not Biblical, it is discrimination. It has nothing to do with any kind of real values, only hate.

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      So, you believe that whomever you’re talking about thought that the dog wedding was something other than a joke? You know, they might be willing to create a cake for homosexual marriage — if it’s just going to be a joke.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Were the dogs committing bestiality with their owners as husband and wife.. If so, that’s sick and the owner ought to tell him or her to flake off.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      jomotro – In the US businesses must serve the entire public. They can’t refuse to serve people of a certain religion (even though that’s a choice and sexual orientation is not). They can’t refuse to serve people of a certain minority group. Only 1 generation ago 9 of 10 Americans believed it was a sin as well as a crime to marry someone of another race. And you put two non-biblical teachings into the bible in your post just now. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is a Hindu teaching. “God helps those who help themselves” is also not in the bible. It’s obvious you don’t know the bible, you are just using it to justify your prejudice against gays. Cake bakers are not required to judge the sins of anyone they make a cake for; what is this, Iran?

                    • jomotro

                      I think you need to reread what I said, because I did not say what you are saying I said. And obviously it is you who does not know the Bible. Or at least have an understanding of it.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      jomotro, you again offer no rational argument. Also, you ass-u-me incorrectly. I went to Catholic college and seminary. I have read the bible daily for over 40 years and in the original languages. I served as a chaplain to the homeless, teaching bible study courses that brought many people to the Lord. The only ministry you are showing us here is The Insults Ministry.

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      Well, you can now add to that resume the fact that you have become a gay-activist antichrist. Congratulations. Satan is proud.

                    • Valentin

                      My father went to both a Catholic high school and college but he is by no means an expert on the bible in fact he was told that fasting from meat was simply a secular invention for times of famine. If you are an expert on the Bible that point out what part of the Bible you are getting this stuff from rather than making blatant assertions.

                    • ICCC1978

                      ” How the mighty are fallen” (2 Samuel, Chapter 1).
                      Galatians:
                      “Who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth(3:1)
                      “You did run well. Who did hinder you that you should not obey the truth?”(5:7)
                      “You are fallen from grace” (5:4)
                      “Am I your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (4:16)

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      Those are simply your liberal-minded ideas about society, which have nothing to do with the Constitution or the Founding Fathers’ intentions. So they don’t tread any water with me. Also, you are showing your general ignorance about the Bible (with a capital B), just like whomever might have actually thought that it is a sin to marry outside your race, (I don’t doubt they existed.) You’re in the same boat as them.

                      Finally, nobody here said that “God helps those who help themselves.” is in the Bible (though hating the sin but not the sinner *is* a notion presented in the New Testament by the actions of Christ Himself). so you are rebuffing a straw man.

                    • Valentin

                      Look this not discrimination bull crap in US is a very new invention that is not based on a teaching of God or on solid human reasoning but rather on a artificial secular structure.

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      For a Christian to create a beautiful cake with something like “Wedding bells…. Congratulations!” written on it, with two men or two women on top, is for the Christian to create a piece of art which is either a lie or a contradiction to their values, either of which is anathema to Christianity. It’s not about eating cake.

                      By the way, your statement about whom you think does or doesn’t understand the Constitution (capitalized properly) better is uninformed.

                    • Valentin

                      Having a piece of cake to celebrate your birthday is different than celebrating for when you and you gay friend sodomize each other.

                    • MapDark

                      SO IS THEIR SEXUALITY!

                      If it was as simple as choosing NOT to be gay , then people would not be gay. Because nobody wakes up one morning and decides “I think I’ll be gay today and deny myself respect and human rights! YAY!”

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      Right, just like I can’t choose to stop being attracted to women’s bottoms (as a straight man who was born that way), but I can choose to have sex with my wife’s vagina instead of her anus, because anuses and colons were not made for that, and anal sex can result in several problems, so I’ve read. (So can homosexual sex.)

                    • Valentin

                      Look I am attracted to women too but are you seriously so out of control that you jump on every half naked woman on the beach because you “feel attracted”? There is no such thing as homosexual sex because sex the name for the separation of mankind namely men and women and homosexual implies that there is only one sex involved.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Actor Michael Douglas reports he has HIV mouth cancer caused by oral sex…..*Unnatural sex?*

                    • ICCC1978

                      I haven’t read of a “gay gene”. Have you? Please cite your source. Otherwise, I will consider it a CHOICE, not genetics.
                      Case in point: My wife and I are white- we came from white parents. My youngest son is Vietnamese-his parents are Vietnamese. He didn’t one day choose to be Vietnamese. It is his genetics. He looks Vietnamese ,too, not Caucasian, even if he wanted to be white. So it is with homosexuals– they have chosen to be that. No genetics involved there

                    • Joel Colquitt

                      When did you choose to be straight? At what moment did you decide, “I’m going to be a good Christian and become only attracted physically to members of the opposite sex”? Oh, you never consciously came to that conclusion? It just happened as naturally as puberty? Yet you assume other people “chose” to be gay and “made a choice” to live “a gay lifestyle.”

                      Sound argument indeed. Can God even be heard in your church with all that hatred spewing around? Or did He move out entirely?

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      Joel, Pope Francis said to Right-wingers who spew such hateful statements, “How do you expect to evangelize people if you keep insulting them?” And his famous quote on gays was, “Who am I to judge?”

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      Yeah? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/29/pope-francis-gay-adoption_n_4516304.html

                      I’m not Catholic, but I believe that he was trying to express the Protestant saying of “Hate the sin, not the sinner.”, but stumbled all over himself in the effort.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      Hate the sin, love the sinner” is actually not from the bible or Christianity. It is a Hindu saying pre-dating Christianity and Judaism

                    • AugustineThomas

                      You’re always right in your fantasy world.

                      Hindus have no such commitment or belief, so please take your lies somewhere else.
                      Hindus didn’t know of charity before Christians lifted them from heathendom (or tried at least).

                    • Kim Washburn

                      You might want to pick up an actual book sometime.Someone has fed you a pile of self serving rubbish.

                    • jomotro

                      When did I insult someone? And who is Pope Francis?

                    • Philip Maguire

                      Males and females are complementary to each other and the sexual attraction of one for the other is our natural state therefore your question is a nonsense.

                      Same sex attraction is not a natural state. Our bodies are not equipped for same sex sexual activity. Sodomy, for example, is not sexual intercourse because the anal canal is not a sex organ.

                      Some things are too obvious to argue about but sadly it doesn’t stop some people trying.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Honey if you can’t figure out how the bodies fit then you arent doing it right.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Challenge: Let one lesbian couple procreate using only their own eggs, and one homosexual couple procreate using only their own sperm. Let’s see who has a baby first. Are you up to it? Go to it! Warning: Don’t cheat

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Why? We don’t need to..

                    • ICCC1978

                      msm

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Completely unnecessary. Our children got here just fine. Is it your fear that the man is unnecessary? That’s just silly.

                    • ICCC1978

                      How could your children get here just fine? Wasn’t there a male(s) involved to impregnate one or both of you? Otherwise, I would have to say it was by IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Well, yes they are here and thriving. They did get here just fine. It’s kind of creepy that you want the details. P.s. …http://m.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/thenewcivilrights/#!/entry/breaking-largest-study-of-children-raised-by-samesex-parents-shows,5269edbdda27f5d9d04206ce

                    • ICCC1978

                      Tell me again, how did you get your wife pregnant? And who decided to be the wife and who decided to be the husband? Can you flip roles, too? It could be interesting to see your children’s birth certificate
                      By the way, did they find a “gay gene yet?

                    • Kim Washburn

                      The first is none of your business. Husband? I think you are confused. Your ignorance is showing.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Please tell us how a woman/transvestites/cross-dresser can get pregnant by anal sex???

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      Being “gay” just means that you were born with an inclination toward that particular sin, not that you must commit the sin. Every possible sin described by The Bible has people born with an inclination toward it. Furthermore, I do not believe in the existence of strictly homosexual people; I believe that homosexuals are instead all bisexual but have chosen to give up on relationships with the opposite sex.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      A million Christians around the world the past 40 years chose to become ex-gays, but last year ex-gay leaders admitted NOBODY CHANGED FROM HOMOSEXUAL TO HETEROSEXUAL. The national and international ex-gay ministries shut down forever.

                    • AugustineThomas

                      Actually there are a lot of happy ex-gays (you homonazis can’t shout them all down).
                      And they have far better social stats than homosexuals.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      oooooh…. Homonazi….Cool! Did you make that up all by your little self. You must be so excited!

                    • ICCC1978

                      I read an interesting blog on Rosaria Butterfield, speaking at the University of Florida. Google it sometime when you are open to being REALLY free!

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Why don’t you set an example for us. show us how easy it is and change your sexual orientation for a few months. just a few, you can always change back if you want. A piece of cake right?

                    • ICCC1978

                      I personally will not “change sexual orientation” for a few months, since that would “give place to the devil”(Ephesians, Chapter 4, verse 27). Anyone who offers liberty and acceptance to live in sin, is a servant of sin: ” While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption. For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.(II Peter, chapter 2, verse19). Those who practice homosexuality are in bondage, held by the Devil to do his will. But their final end will not be good- they shall not inherit the kingdom of God(1 Corinthians, Chapter 6, verse9-11) . But such can use to be you, if you’ll repent, and turn from it. Jesus can set you free, if you want it! It’s your choice.

                    • Kim Washburn
                    • Kim Washburn
                    • ICCC1978

                      Somehow, my comments were deleted, so here we go again.
                      *Have I threaten violence against you? No!
                      *Have I encouraged violence against homosexuals? No!
                      *Do I accept violence against homosexuals? No!
                      Just because we don’t agree on this particular subject, does not mean that I want to hurt you with violence. Our disagreement is in words only, not in threats of violence or vengeance. Use of profanity, insults, threats, etc. is totally unacceptable , and I have written to both sides saying so. My words were written(typed) to provoke, not violence, but for people to THINK. If I ask probing questions, its not to destroy you, but to make you THINK.
                      In all sincerity, I would that all people would experience the life-changing power of the Lord Jesus Christ. That will cause one to not hate, but rather to love people enough to tell them the truth, in the hope that they too can experience that transformation from emptiness, loneliness, hopelessness caused by sin, to the peace and joy of knowing Jesus, who died to set us FREE from sin.
                      I can’t answer for those who have used violence against homosexuals. I answer for myself and my family. Putting all Bible believers in the same pot would not be accurate, nor fair. Even so, can others accurately say that all homosexuals commit deviant sex crimes against humanity, including children? Yes, there have been those crimes, so should you be painted with same brush as them?
                      A civil discussion can be done without profanity, insults, threats of violence, and even shouting(verbal).
                      Please don’t think I hate you, or wish ill on you. I would not approve of such behavior. Neither would Christ Jesus. However, in my opinion and understanding of the Scriptures, Jesus would not approve of what you are doing and He has commanded me in the Scriptures to warn all to flee from the Wrath of God that is to come. The warning to flee from the Wrath to come is not just to homosexuals only, but to all people. “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” ( 2 Peter, Chapter 3, verse 9)

                    • Kim Washburn
                    • ICCC1978

                      Nice try Kim! Unfortunately for you, the authors don’t possess very good Greek skills. I am also suspicious of college professors of religion that are doubting writings verified by historians and archeologists for centuries[case in point: one of our state universities has an atheist for the chairman of the department of religion].
                      So let’s go the text that really makes clear God’s opinion of homosexuality : Paul Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1.
                      Verse 18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous of man[mankind], who hold the truth in unrighteous[know the truth, but will not obey it].
                      Verse 19-20: God manifests His existence by creation and by the “invisible things”[our conscience].
                      Verse 21-23: “neither were thankful…Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” they became idolaters.
                      Verses 24-28 Here is what God called homosexuality:
                      V. 24 “Uncleanness, lusts, dishonor(disrespect) their own bodies”
                      Verse 26-27 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections. For even their women did change the natural use [of man] into that which is against nature[lesbianism]. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another- men with men, working that which is indecent . And receiving in themselves that recompense[punishment] of their error, which is proper.” Could HIV-AIDS be God’s punishment against homosexuality?
                      Verse28 “God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”
                      Verses 29-31 A catalog of other sins that God WILL punish,besides idolatry and homosexuality, unless the person repents of them.
                      Kim, please don’t think that I hate you, or wish ill-will on you. I only wish for you to know the loving Savior, Jesus Christ, that died to take our place on the cross to take away our sins. He can set you FREE from the bondage of sin, if you want it. You only have to ask Him to set you FREE, then obey Him.
                      Best wishes to you.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      No wonder young people are leaving your hypocritical churches in droves. Good luck to you. Take good care.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Thanks for your reply!
                      I understand young people’s distain for hypocrisy. Though I am not a Catholic, I also understand that truth is truth, regardless if it is acceptable or not. God didn’t, nor ever does, conduct opinion polls on what He commands. If people don’t like His commandments, He doesn’t change them to suit their tastes or opinion.
                      The scandals within the Catholic Church has caused many to be disillusioned concerning any involvement in any church. Many Catholics are outraged that effective measures were not taken years ago to rid the priesthood of pedophiles(my mother being one of them). Let me present to you, and to all people, Jesus. He will not disappoint you. He is a “friend who sticks closer than a brother”. He has NEVER disappointed me, nor has He ever forsaken me.
                      Kim, my prayer for you, and to anyone who reads this post, is that they will find Jesus, who loves us with such great love, and is willing and able to set us FREE from the bondage of sin, so we can avoid the never-ending horror of hell-fire.
                      Blessings on you my friend!

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Exactly

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Are you bisexual??

                    • Valentin

                      Look you can decide to have kids and you can also decide to sodomize someone but the is a huge difference between the two and in a real marriage life is brought into the world where as two gay guys sodomizing each other is not, I don’t care if someone “feels gay” I have felt like lying, and stealing before that doesn’t mean I did it.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      So, marriage is only for procreation??

                    • Valentin

                      It is certainly an integral part.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      I am a lesbian, I am legally married and we have 2 children. One just completed her masters in education and a minor in psychology at 23 and one is in elementary school. We have loving wonderful families too. You have no exclusivity on that.

                    • AugustineThomas

                      I’ll pray for your children. Without a father, their chances of depression, suicide, sexual abuse, drug abuse and every other negative indicator go through the roof.

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Give me a valid study. My kids are very happy well adjusted people. The have the loving nuturing care of two parents that love and support them unconditionally.

                    • AugustineThomas

                      http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-health-48997/
                      (You can use a search engine to find hundreds, if not thousands more.)

                    • Kim Washburn

                      My kids are thriving happy young people who are supported and deeply loved by all their parents unconditionally. And who said they didn’t have a father? They have a great father.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Did you have your children with your new wife/husband?

                    • Kim Washburn

                      Wife. Yes

                    • ICCC1978

                      So she got pregnant with your sperm? Or did she get pregnant with your egg? Which way was it? I could be confused about this, but I’m not a transvestite or cross-dresser.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      jomotro, skin color, eye color and sexual orientation are all God-given traits. And there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality since God put it into every species.

                    • jomotro

                      You just keep telling yourself that.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      So, you have no rational argument, then. That is settled.

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      Can’t argue with someone who is sleep-walking and sleep-talking — too busy dreaming to wake up and admit that homosexuality is bad for the real world. One just has to stop, turn, and walk away…. (And yet liberals say that Christians are loony. At least our values make sense, whatever you want to say about our faith.)

                    • Guest

                      You are very confused. Homosexual disorientation is not ordained by God and is a type if defect. Just as blindness is a defect. We should work to correct this things.

                    • TheKnowerseeker

                      Didn’t you study in seminary (yeah right, Mr. “b”ible) how the Earth and everything in it became corrupted with sin when Adam and Eve opened the “Pandora’s Box”, so to speak, of eating the forbidden fruit? Murder and cruelty are also to be found in “nature”.

                    • Valentin

                      You act as though it is impossible for an evil spirit to attract anyone. Oh and I am pretty sure that no a single baby is drawn towards butt sex and typhoid but I guess a gay guy doesn’t have much experience with young children because you won’t bring any into this world.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Valentin, thank you for bringing up “evil spirit to attract anyone”.
                      Jerry, you surely read of the temptation of Christ in Matthew, Chapter 4. There you see Jesus being tempted by the Devil, YET HE DID NOT GIVE IN TO THE TEMPTATION. So it is with homosexuality(and other sins).The Devil baits the person to get him/her to do it.
                      As a fisherman:
                      No bait/no bite/no fish
                      Wrong bait/no bite/no fish
                      Right bait/ get bite/ hopefully a fish.
                      So it is with homosexuality, the devil has baited them, hook, line, and sinker, and they are snared.
                      Only Jesus can set them free!

                    • Valentin

                      Thank you for the example, as the priest said in today’s homily “the Devil does not want people to know he exists” I think in part people often confuse temptations with all the good things which Angels of light draw us towards because the Devil likes to disguise himself. Just as you said Only Jesus can set you free, he who is both man and God.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Incorrect! Homosexuality is not natural.
                      With your Bible knowledge, as you profess, you are quite aware that God Himself destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah(Genesis 19). [Archeologists have found the incinerated ruins with very high levels of sulfur, such as in brimstone.]
                      With your Bible knowledge you would have found that God says in Romans, Chapter 1,(in the Catholic Jerusalem Bible) that homosexuality is called “filthy enjoyment; dishonor their own bodies; abandoned; degrading passions; unnatural practices; shameless things with men; perversion; irrational; monstrous behavior; depravity; rottenness(verses 24-29).
                      With your Bible knowledge you would have found that being “wicked…catamites, sodomites”… will not inherit the kingdom of God. Such WERE some of you, BUT…”.The Lord changed people FROM being homosexual TO being heterosexual. (1st Corinthians, Chapter6, verses 9-11).
                      I can show more passages from the Bible that God distains and abhors homosexuality. If you read the Bible carefully, you’ll find it if you look for the truth in sincerity and obedience. You will have to desire truth above all else to be able to find it.

                    • James Tarr

                      I hate to break it to you, but sexual orientation is as innate as having black skin. One you can see, the other you can’t.

                    • Valentin

                      There is a huge difference between wanting to sodomize the guy next to you and procreating.

                    • Neil Ruth

                      Being gay is not a conscious choice, you’re working on assumption, I’m addressing this with fact – it’s genetic, you absolute stupid and pathetic excuse for a human being. Having sex with whomever you’re attracted too is natural and transpire across all living creatures.
                      Having sex with my boyfriend is natural, beautiful and HOT – looking at you, one would assume you’re still a virgin – particularlarly as your attitude emulates your ugly aesthetics. Xx

                    • Kim Washburn

                      again, homosexuality exists in more than 450 species that we know of. There is nothing unnatural about it.

                    • Valentin

                      Name ten and tell me that something is accomplished by those creatures messing around. hermaphroditic animals don’t count and snails don’t either because that’s how they reproduce.

                    • jomotro

                      Name one legitimate one.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      Science has shown us that sexual orientation is a given trait, not a choice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

                    • jomotro

                      If this were true, The homosexuals and main stream media would be all over it. Science has yet to prove anything. Besides, it doesn’t matter what your bent is if following it causes you to sin.

                  • Sandhall

                    That’s exactly what I was thinking Jessica; plenty of people use the Bible to justify racial prejudice too. People who are discriminated against are tired of it and effectively organizing. Hiding behind the words of an ancient manuscript that has been altered many times to suit political needs is not acceptable.

                    • Valentin

                      Since when was this Catholic forum over run by secularists who won’t appreciate the revelation that God has given us?

                    • jomotro

                      Ever since they became militant.

                    • ICCC1978

                      That is plain foolishness.
                      Attacking the Bible is akin to attacking our nation’s Constitution, since many of our nation’s forefathers to the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention were preachers of the Gospel, and many defended the Bible’s use in public matters. The Laws of our land were founded using William Blackstone’s law book, which he used the Bible for his precepts.
                      If “discriminating against homosexuals” is offensive, perhaps Americas should quit discriminating against polygamists(ask your wife about that one- she might not approve of that one), bestiality, incest among relatives, NAMBA(men-boy love),etc. Once the floodgates open, where do we draw the line to stop this wholesale perversion? Stop the perversion before it starts! And homosexuality is PERVERSION in God’s Law, eyes, and opinion!

                  • TheKnowerseeker

                    Speaking of black people, black Christians have been demanding that gays stop equating their desire for acceptance with the black community’s struggle against racism. So when are you going to honor their request? By the way, when are you going to stop discriminating against Christians?

                    • ICCC1978

                      You are absolutely correct!

                  • AugustineThomas

                    Thanks for the brainwashed leftist perspective!

                    Black people are born that way. It’s not a perversion to be black. We don’t protect adulterers or pedophiles either!

                • Cules

                  They deserved to be shutdown. You don’t think they made cakes for thrice married people ? Ridiculous religious garbage makes bigotry acceptable among your ranks. You should be ashamed to be so easily led by a UNPROVEN book.

                • SteveSando

                  But you are harming people.
                  So now what?

                  • Louis

                    Practicing my religion is not a form of hate, nor does it harm others. Sexual behavior is not an identity, simply insisting that it is a type of people and cannot be changed does not make it true.

                    • SteveSando

                      Your voting to deny my rights does harm me.
                      When you are gay, I’ll let you decide what’s true for me.

                    • Louis

                      I used to be gay. I opened myself up to my faith and became who I was meant to be. Far from condemning me, my religion empowered me to leave a life of sin! You’re missing out and should open your heart and soul to God and experience freedom from sin.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Wonderful!!!!!

                    • Louis

                      thank you. So few people get it. Gay is something you do and can be changed. It cannot be who you are, since it is not genetic.

                      It is no wonder that people who elevate it to the level of identity feel stuck and trapped. i always took responsibility for what i was doing and that made it easier. that much said, it is like quitting drinking, smoking or over eating. It can be done, but it is very difficult to do. sadly people give up trying and die of AIDS. Truth is, living an actively gay life is more dangerous to your health and will shorten your life more aggressively than smoking or drinking or over eating. it really is dangerous and like other harmful addictions, a real mental illness.

                    • Valentin

                      There is a huge distinction between being right and having a freedom. Plus shoving your penis in another mans anus is not right nor is it reasonable you don’t accomplish one damn thing except for having a higher likelihood of getting Cholera and typhoid.

                    • Valentin

                      Shoving your dick in someones butt and calling it marriage is not a “right”.

                • Karma

                  I think you forget, dear, that the Bible clearly states, “As you sow, so shall you reap”. For centuries Christians have been forcing others to live by their ideas, and forced them to listen to x-tian prattle….despite being told in the Bible, “…if they will not hear you, shake the dust from your feet when you cross the threshold”. In other words, say it once and move on. NOTHING Christ said was about FORCING other to live by another’s interpretation of the Bible, or even forcing others to live in accord with x-tian so-called values. Christians have been bankrupting others, forcing them out of house and home, lost jobs, etc for centuries. You have sown, now you reap.
                  Suck it up, buttercup.

                  • Karma

                    And let us not forget how much x-tians enjoy killing each other over who reads the right Bible, and who is the only church to *know* what the god of Abraham meant.

                    • Valentin

                      What translation you have makes a difference between reading the truth and reading a bad translation as for killing each other if you could actually come up with an example that be quite courteous.

                  • Louis

                    If scripture were revered by you, you would recognize how both old and new testament condemn homosexual behavior as sinful, while making it clear that repentance is the first step in leaving a sinful life behind. To claim that true Christians promote homosexuality is a sad commentary on those who feel that everything is subject to relative morality. How can you claim to revere God when you make it clear that your opinion carries more weight than His word?

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      Louis, “Homosexuality” is a modern medical concept. Stop pretending that ancient people knew anything about the medical science we have today. There was no understanding of a lifelong sexual orientation in the biblical era. And many things common then are not followed today. Through most of the bible, a man could have as many wives as he could afford and as many concubines (sex slaves) as his sword brought him. A man could legally beat his wife and kids. In divorces, the man owned the kids and the woman had no rights at all. Women were owned by their fathers and then husbands.

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      And today 99% of heterosexuals have sex before they wed. Evangelicals have higher divorce rates than society at large even though God hates divorce, as Jesus said. Anyone who divorces and remarries is living in sin, said Jesus, though Catholics have the same remarriage rate as others. Do you want bakers asking if this is your first marriage? If you fornicated? Committed adultery?

                    • ICCC1978

                      Once again, see my remarks above concerning divorce.
                      Yes, God hates divorce(Malachi 2, verse 16), but He loves the divorcee enough to call them to Him, like the woman at the well in Gospel of John, Chapter4, verses 16-19.
                      Yet, realize that God Himself destroyed 2 cities all by Himself because of HOMOSEXUALITY (Genesis ,Chapter19). I don’t recall any other city destroyed by other sins in particular. Do you?

                    • Louis

                      Scripture does not need to accommodate the errors of modernism. that is a heresy that has been taught against in all eras. Just because some people ‘see” homosexuality as God give, dos not make it so, nor does it mean church should negate scripture in a lame marketing attempt to appease sinners.

                      Yes, you do find historical coverage of sinful people in scripture. this does not advocate that people should have many wives and concubines, it only means that this is how people lived at the time.

                      finding heterosexuals who engage in fornication does not mean that God made them that way. Neither does the existence of adultery mean that God created adulterers as an unchangeable life long orientation. I’d need references for your statistics. Religion actually has a positive effect on people’s sexual behavior. No, it’s not perfect, but those who practice their faith have less divorce, abortion, STDs, fornication and adultery. Yes, there is even less homosexuality among people who practice their faith since it is a controllable sexual behavior like adultery and fornication. Like other sexual sins, it is unworthy basing your entire life upon. Those who elevate sin to the level of identity usually deny that they are sinning.

                      How sad to have created god in your own image – What a small and powerless god you must have!

                    • Jerry Reiter

                      I hate to break it to you, but scientific polls show evangelicals have a higher divorce rate than society at large. And the ignorant condemnation of gays that forces them to denounce their own God-given sexual orientation to stay in churches like yours only leads to the down-low life of anonymous, unsafe sex. Married LGBT couples have lower rates of STD’s than down-low gay Christians do by a very large margin. 65% of young evangelicals now support marriage equality. The young see your views on gays and marriage equality the way you see your grandparents’ generation’s views on race and interracial marriage. Open your heart to Christ and follow His example: Jesus never spoke a single word against gays.

                    • Louis

                      You would have to show your references for your “Scientific polls” simply posting figures doe not make it true. In reality, those who go to church have fewer children out of wedlock, fewer STDs, are less likely to be homosexual, less likely to have abortions, and more likely to get married and stay married.

                      Much of your comment seems to be based on several falsehoods. You presume that all people agree that sex is a necessity and that no one can live without it. The absence of gay marriage does not create open relationships and unsafe sex. Gay relationships are promiscuous by definition and sex between men cannot be made safe. Even in countries where homosexuality has been affirmed and gay marriage has been available for much longer than here in the USA, STDs are rampant among gay men, because condoms are ineffective and promiscuity and open relationships are the rule among gay men regardless of their religion or marital status.

                      You presume that it is someone else’s fault when gay men become infected with HIV. Obviously people are responsible for their own behavior and outside affirmation of a sinful lifestyle will make no difference in the physical, emotional, spiritual or psychological outcome of those who engage in same sex behavior.

                      Homosexuality is not a “God given sexual orientation” anymore than pedophilia is God given. Just because it feels good, does not mean that it is good or God given. Quite the opposite is true. Virtue is God given and involves a life of discipline and sacrifice. Sin is often filled with pleasure and never involves any kind of sacrifice. The difference is in the long term rewards. A life of sin results in death from AIDS after numerous open relationships with no real commitment. A life of discipline is based on one lifelong relationship with a member of the opposite sex. It involves children, grandchildren, growing old together and living a long healthy life. Virtue is its own reward, and the wages of sin is death.

                      The role of the church is to help those with unwanted same sex attractions to follow their desire to leave the gay life. There is no such thing as “being gay” it is a type of behavior qand not a type of people. Like quitting smoking, people miss it and want to return, but after a while away from the behavior, the desire begins to wane and often disappears for many. My heart is open to Christ and His church as it serves God in helping people to follow His will for Human sexuality as expressed in both Old and New Testaments.

                      It is shameful that people such as yourself look for loopholes in scripture. Jesus never spoke about “Sexting”, “internet porn”, beastiality, incest, or masturbation. These things are all sinful. True Christians realize that scripture is to be expanded to include all aspects of life regardless of historical era. Those who claim that “modern homosexuality” is different or that the Bible does not apply since it was written by ancient people have no understanding of the inerrency of scripture and presume that theology is only a matter of opinion and that there opinion is comparable to that of an educated theologian. Theology is a legitimate field of study and an authentic body of knowledge. this “science’ you revere more highly than scripture is more often opinion than fact. “Science’ declares that prescription drugs are safe, then other scientists argue in court on behalf of class action defendants that the medication is unsafe. Whose scientific opinion is to be trusted? When it comes to the science of homosexuality, science shows that change in sexual orientation is possible for many people, those who embrace a gay lifestyle are physically, mentally and emotionally less healthy. Statistics show higher levels of STDs, substance abuse, depression, anxiety and suicide. Those who practice homosexuality are a very small portion of the population and their behavior is clearly abnormal not only in percentage of population, but in the use of their sexual reproductive capacity. It is a non normative use of sexual reproduction organs to combine them with digestive organs in the pursuit of orgasm. Such a choice is an immature pursuit of pleasure and unworthy of a life long dedication of identity.

                    • Valentin

                      There is no way two gay guys can get a divorce anyways because they weren’t married from the get go.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Yes, please show us your scientific poll(source please).
                      Second, with the high incidence of “shacking-up”, the stats are very skewed against any group of *married people*. Add the number of people cohabitating that break up, and the numbers of evangelicals divorcing won’t even come near the cohabitators(fornicators). No, I’m not justifying divorce. But let’s call it correctly and accurately.
                      Thirdly, we can thank the god-less public schools and Hollywood for promoting homosexual perversion. If everyone knew how homosexuals “get their jollies”, there wouldn’t be enough garbage cans and barf bags to handle the people vomiting. This is
                      why we parents need to teach our children that homosexuality is WRONG and it is perverted sex.
                      Fourth, I follow Jesus and His example:” I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”(Matthew Chapter9, verse 13). And, yes, Jesus did speak a word against gays(homosexuals). The word “porneia” is the Greek word translated “fornication”. In the Greek it is far more broader than the English word, including such sexual sins as incest, adultery, harlotry, and homosexuality, etc. Porneia is where we get the word pornography. So when you read in Matthew’s Gospel in Chapter5 ,verse 32; chapter 15, verse 19; chapter 19, verse 9, see that homosexuality can be a cause for reason of divorce and considered evil coming out of the heart.

                    • Valentin

                      I am pretty sure ancient people were smart enough not to put their genitalia in the end of someones digestive tract. They defecated as well you know.

                    • 65snake

                      So, basically, you think anal sex is icky, and blaming it on religious belief makes you think you get to forbid everyone from it.
                      You have failed as a decent human being.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Go ahead- get HIV-AIDS. Not exactly the smartest move you’ll make.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Could it be possible that someone could get colon cancer, or sexually transmitted diseases from this form of perverted sex? What about tearing of the intestinal tract, etc.? I bet a doctor or nurse would know.

                    • Valentin

                      Doctors have recommended against it for that very reason. I know a man in his 50’s who at one point was a lawyer in San Francisco and he said at the time the top incident which lead people to the hospital was gay guys putting gerbils in their rear end.

                    • ICCC1978

                      My brother was a police officer in a major metropolitan city. He reported that the police got a call for an ambulance escort. Two homosexual men were doing it in the bed. One of them tied a gerbil’s foot with a string, rammed the gerbil up his “lover’s” rectum. When he got finished with his jollies, the one pulled on the string to get the gerbil out. But, alas, the string broke, and he couldn’t get the gerbil out of his lover’s butt. The ambulance was called to take the homosexual to the hospital to have the gerbil removed.
                      Several thoughts:
                      1) Isn’t it animal cruelty to gerbils? Where is PETA?
                      2) Is the homosexual that had the gerbil caught in his butt still alive today? Did he get a sexually transmitted disease from the gerbil, or from someone else later on?
                      3) Is this natural sex?
                      4) If the truth be known about all these “sick” sexual intercourses and antics, the general public would cry out in disgust, or will become complete fools thinking it’s OK(to each his own) or, if stupid enough, try it themselves. Judging by the gutter lifestyle of Hollywood, I suspect that Hollywood actors will try it and promote it. We don’t have a Hell-a Vision in our home , and we don’t miss it! If I want to bring garbage in my home, I’ll bring in a garbage can. Just because one can find a few juicy pieces of meat in a garbage can, I don’t go looking for it in a garbage can.

                    • James Tarr

                      I’m beginning to see why the church, in the past, put the common-folk to death for reading the Bible. They just can’t interpret the meaning. The Bible is steeped in history. Reading the words gives a very different meaning without understanding WHY the words were put there in the first place. It’s all about context

                    • Guest

                      The Church did not people people to death for reading the bible. That is second grade level bigotry.

                    • Louis

                      I know of no time when people were killed for reading the Bible. No one was able to afford the Bible until the printing press was invented. After the Bible was printed, those who read it began forming their own religions. If they had been killed, there would not be any protestant religions. When people say the Bible must be understood in “context” they usually mean that they have an interpretation that involves claiming that what they do is not sinful, since things are so different now than they were in Biblical times. the truth is that the Bible is way ahead of its time and still very valid today and always. The problem of homosexuality was present in both Old and New Testament times and discussing such sinful behavior was far ahead of its time for 2000 or 4000 years ago. Sinful people defended it then and it was a popular sin in pagan cultures. Not much has changed over the past 2000 years! More importantly, the guidance offered by the Bible is more important now than it was then!

                    • James Tarr
                    • Louis

                      I could hardly wade through the urban legend tripe. “100, 000 people killed in one week!” So a small percentage of the community was reading the Bible for themselves and loyal churchmen put them to death. This group was mostly business men and other educated literate people in the early 16th century?

                      So perhaps 5% of the public was educated and could read…. of this 5% , a small minority of them met in secret to study scripture, say another 5% of the population (I’m being generous with the estimate to prove a point)

                      5% of 5% of the whole population was equal to 100, 000 people (men, since women did not go to school or read in the 16th century)

                      100,000 X 20 = 2,000,000. This would be the population of all people who could read in France at the time. then multiply the 2 million by 20 to get the population of men in France at the time and then double to get the total population after figuring in women. that brings you to 40 million before you double, and 80 million after. this creates a population for 16th century France that is considerably larger than the current population. 100, 000 in one week is a higher death toll than any single week in any other war ever. Even the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW II only came close to this figure, though Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only mid sized cities during this time. What type of organized war effort would be needed to execute 100, 000 people in one week? Even Nazi concentration camps did not exterminate people so efficiently. Do not believe everything you see on the internet, it is the sign of an uncritical and uneducated mind. Revisionist history and urban legend always fail when looked at closely.

                    • ICCC1978

                      If you would even read the Bible in the first place, you would see the exceeding wickedness of people, and the desperate need of a Savior that can wash away sins and transform people. Hint: JESUS!

                  • Valentin

                    I don’t even need scripture to see that shoving my dick into someones rectum is both disgusting and useless and damages the other person.

                  • ICCC1978

                    WRONG!
                    “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked bear rule, the people mourn” (Proverbs 29:2)
                    “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34)

                • Neil Ruth

                  I think you’ll find these apparent Christians, perpetuated their demise by their derogatory attack of innocent people whom we’re being discriminated against purely based on their sexuality, which FYI is NOT a choice – it’s genetic, you idiot. Frankly, people with this horrible attitude deserve everything they get – and that includes people like you, and any other who share your abhorrent views.
                  I will always stand up for equality and gladly fight, challenge and destroy idiots like you, we’re going nowhere and have the support of decent, honest and good people, kindly burn in hell where you belong.

                  • Louis

                    God will not send to hell those who reject sinful living such as homosexuality, nor does he view homosexuals as innocent. Homosexuality is not genetic and there is much scientific evidence to prove this. There was only speculation that it might be genetic, and this was proven false 2 decades ago. Behavior is too complex to be genetic anyway. Being Asian or being male is obviously genetic and cannot be changes. Desire and behavior are never genetic and change all the time.

                    It is sad that you insist God endorses your sinful life and that all who disagree with you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a civil rights issue since it is a type of behavior and not a type of people. Marriage should not be redefined to be other than what it has always been/. One man and one woman for life. While not all live up to that ideal, those who do are there for their children and build satisfying lives based on family. Gay marriage is about two people in lust and pleasuring each other. It is not capable of reproduction or the building and sustaining of family.

                    The real purpose behind so called “marriage equality” is to redefine marriage so that when children go to school they will be indoctrinated with the idea that their parents commitment to family is no different from the open relationship of two men who masturbate each other. You have accurately predicted the end result of your plot. Children will be led to believe that if their parents go to church, they are evil and will burn in hell.

              • Adam__Baum

                1.) Those acts, to borrow Anthony Kennedy’s vacant characterization that are “customary” amoung homosexuals are inherently dangerous, even apart from issues of promiscuity.
                2.) You do not live your life the same as I do. I sought my complement, a woman to be my wife. You seek your reflection and in doing so, declare the opposite sex to be superflous.

                • JessicaSideways

                  Do you not realise how idiotic that sounds, right?

                  Being gay, we aren’t seeking a mirror image of ourselves, many of us actually do seek out that person that compliments us. I am looking for that one woman who can be everything I need from a partner – but most importantly, my best friend. Most everything else is negotiable, because for me it is about a long term relationship.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    No, because first of all it’s not audible speech. But do tell me, I regard you as an expert on idiocy.

                  • Louis

                    2 women together or two men together are competitive and not complimentary. The greatest fulfillment of sexuality is sexual reproduction. It is where both you and I come from. Sexual reproduction is mutual among those who are building a life together. Mutually masturbating someone who has the same genitals as you have is not comparable to heterosexual love open to reproduction. Thankfully i belong to a religion that understands the wisdom of lifelong marriage among a man and a woman with no use of birth control, abortion or premarital sex.

                    • James Tarr

                      Competitive? WTF? How the hell would you know? Have you been in a gay relationship?

                    • Louis

                      Yes I have been in several gay relationships, but none since the last 14 years. I’m ex gay and proud of it. Realizing the truth that gay is a type of changeable behavior and not an identity made all the difference in the world. Accepting that it was sinful helped me receive empowerment to leave a sinful life. God helps those who choose His will over their own, and that was the biggest help to me.

                      Not to mention my acceptance of the scientific fact that men and women are different and complement each other. Men and women each have what the other is missing. Together they complete each other. It is what helps bond men and women together for life. There is no reason for two men to bond for life and none seem to do so. Open relationships, promiscuity and multiple partners were the rule among all the gay men I knew and myself as well. Leaving the gay life was like leaving an addiction. I knew it was wrong and that I was hurting myself, but I knew it was the right thing to do. After several months away from the lifestyle, my desire was greatly diminished. After a few years, it was gone. Just like other addictions.

                      I was lucky, I never did get any STDs. Most of the people I knew from that lifestyle tested positive and began treatment, several have since died the medicine is harsh and damaging. It has among its side effects, liver and kidney damage, muscle weakness and explosive diarrhea. After 20 years, maybe 30 at the most – HIV catches up with them and the medicine has damaged their bodies and they are too tired to live. I had friends who died of old age in their early 50s. I do speak not only of the possibility of change, but the necessity to change as well. Sex is not worth dying for and those who make that choice are suffering from an addiction that can and should be treated.

                    • 65snake

                      So, you’re actually bisexual and in denial. Got it.

                    • Louis

                      No, though it started out that way. I had an opportunity to compare the experiences of sex with women against the experience of sex with men. In the end my sexual experience became more holy. I knew to wait for marriage before being sexually active. Fornication is sinful as well. Ex gay people are not in denial of anything – it is a genuine experience of people who used to be sexually disoriented and now know and do better with their sexuality. Homosexuality is always behavior and behavior is very changeable. I’m always surprised when people cannot imagine someone leaving homosexuality by changing their minds and their behavior. .

                    • 65snake

                      “The greatest fulfillment of sexuality is sexual reproduction.”
                      Bullshit.

                    • Louis

                      Of course – it’s where we all came from and I’m grateful to be alive. Sorry you think procreation is unimportant. I’ll pray for you to value your life and the lives of others.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Your mom and dad must have thought so, or you would not be here.

                  • Valentin

                    If you want a best friend than look for a best friend but a best friend is not that same as someone you’re married to and have kids with.

                  • Valentin

                    If you want to love a girl than be her friend but masturbating each other is not true love it is a waste of time.

                • James Tarr

                  Oh please! Str8 people have many (if not all ) the sexual diseases you are referring to. And by sheer numbers, str8 people have most of them. As for promiscuity? Think about how many hetero clubs where people hook up for one-nighters. By sheer numbers heteros are having way more “promiscuous” sex than the LGBT community. Think before you make these assumptions and accusations.

                  • Valentin

                    I don’t consider sluts, wastoids, and guys who whore around straight. but lets face it if the rectum is torn there is a obvious way for things such as cholera, typhoid, and hiv to move from the intestines to the blood stream.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    You had two months to read the post, there’s no excuse for the utter irrelevance of your response. Go troll somewhere else.

                    • James Tarr

                      Shut the fuck u, ass hat

                  • Louis

                    They are having far less! homosexuals make up 2 – 3% of the population and account for a considerable percentage of STDs and especially HIV among gay men. It is not heterosexuals who spread STDs at anywhere near the rate of the GLBT population. the statistics bear this out. If you are gay, you have a disproportionate increase of many multiples the infection rate. Among gay men, the chance of being HIV+ is between 20% – 50%. claiming that the remaining 98% of the population has somewhat more STDs than the 2% of the population that is gay is a gross misuse of statistics unworthy of a 7th grade student.

                  • Valentin

                    Someone who goes brothel hopping is not straight but a man who is loyal to his wife is not going to be filled with typhoid, aids and Cholera.

                  • ICCC1978

                    Incorrect!
                    The vast percentage of those with sexually transmitted diseases are homosexuals/lesbian(CDC records).

              • TheKnowerseeker

                Gee, that’s what the article says about Christians. See how homosexuals have become the new “bashers”? Like the former slaves rising up to become the new masters. The truth of the matter is that homosexuality and Christianity will always mix like oil and water, and the only way to have peace between the two is to stay completely away from each other, including separate businesses for controversial services such as wedding services.

              • IvanRider

                Crookeds do unspeakable harm to everyone, all the time. I’ve seen them doing it. And they do the worst of it to themselves. You are not being treated as an inferior being when we refuse to work for you because you want us to build a cake that celebrates fecal matter in the bloodstream. The right to turn down an employment offer is firmly entrenched in the 13th Amendment.

            • Paul McGuire

              You are correct that morality of something doesn’t automatically flow from popularity. At the same time, it seems like those commenting here are a loud minority getting louder as they realize they are losing the culture war on this issue.

              As much as many commenting here are sure of the moral stance against same-sex marriage, there are plenty of others who feel morally obligated to fight for marriage equality. Neither side is given the exclusive access to true morality.

              If things were as clear cut as people here make it sound, there wouldn’t be anything to debate. Catholics like anyone else have gay friends and see the quality of the relationships their gay friend has with his partner. For every rigid advocate for following absolute Catholic morality there are many who never understood why the Church was so against gays to begin with. Those are the people who re-evaluate the subject and start to fight for acceptance.

              • Guest

                Yes, that is called relativism. Homosexual acts have always been condemned. That is not new. What is new is that a small minority demand the right to act wrongly. It happens with abortion, pornography, and much else. That some accept the unacceptable is not new.

                • BenjaminLatrobe

                  “What is your EXCUSE for acting “WRONGLY…???”

                • JessicaSideways

                  Yes, and now, we are starting to see that condemnation fall away. Our society is evolving in a more positive direction in this instance.

                  • guest

                    No, devolving you mean. The tyranny of relativism is everywhere. The shallow thinkers and hedonists now push their rubbish on all of us. That is not a moral improvement at all. It is evidence of vast decay.

                    • JessicaSideways

                      Actually, Christianity is tyranny, not relativism. Relativism results in a morality that is more humane, more caring, more loving than Christianity could ever hope to be.

                      It is sad that the shallow thinkers (like you) push your rubbish on all of us. The good news is that you are losing in the marriage equality debate and morality is prevailing.

                    • Camel

                      Jessica,
                      You sound absolutely absurd. Three men break into your house violently sodomized you and your dog. When caught and asked if they feel any remorse, they simply say “hell no.” It’s all relative.

                    • JessicaSideways

                      You do realise how stupid that statement is, right? Let me fill you in:

                      See, though MORALITY is relative, we as a society agreed to outlaw certain things such as theft and murder. We recognise that to have a functioning society, we shouldn’t be killing each other nor stealing each other’s things.

                      However, the reason gay marriage is not legal in most states is due to religious homophobia and now, people’s eyes are being opened and they are no longer letting a dusty old tome dictate their lives.

                    • Louis

                      Morality is not relative. People who claim that it is are those who expect legally sanctioned immorality. Claiming that If it feels good it is good is the argument of a small child. Sacrifice of unbridled desire to live a moral life is the choice of spiritually, emotionally and intellectually mature people. You don’t know what you are missing, i pray that some day you will join us and reap the rewards that are waiting for you. After all, virtue is it’s own reward.

                    • Valentin

                      People who claim that morality is relative are secularists and people who care more about whats popular than they do about what is right. Don’t let Jessica seem so impressive with her modernist rejection of the foundation of society.

                    • Valentin

                      You might not realize this but most of the world for the longest time have based their laws on something we call religion and reason not what any given individual happens to prefer or what the majority of people like.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Where do you think laws concerning theft and murder came from? From the Bible! And that same Bible condemns homosexuality! Now you know the source of many of our laws.

                    • MapDark

                      Gay people , dog rapists , totally the same thing.

                      You guys are embarassing.

                    • Barry L.

                      I’m with you Jessica. It seems that most of the replies are from religious bigots, and just ignorant folks.

                  • Valentin

                    I would like to see someone show a functioning and stable society where everyone is gay. Oh wait that doesn’t exist.

                  • Guest

                    It is devolving. Relativism is a tyranny.

                • 65snake

                  Actually, homosexual acts have NOT always been condemned. Learn a little history. There are records of the catholic church performing same-sex wedding ceremonies. Multiple cultures throughout history have had no issue with homosexuals. Many native american tribes referred to them as two-spirit people.

                  • Louis

                    That is an urban legend based on a discredited book written by a gay professor. The church never performed or condoned gay marriage. Time to wake up and smell the gay activist propaganda!

                    • MapDark

                      TIME TO READ.
                      There are countless records of church-aprooved gay unions in europe during the middle ages.

                  • James Tarr

                    Not to mention Rome and Greece. Oh also there is a tribe in Papua New Guinea where the men practice these “acts”… that is until the Christian missionaries came in. Now, because of their meddling, there are some beginning to feel shame.

                    • Valentin

                      Yeah because the Roman emperor humiliating military officers in public was a good and noble thing and we all have something to learn from savages wearing vegetables on their dicks.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Where is the great Roman Empire? It collapsed morally into depravity, then was overthrown by outsiders, just as God had warned would happen to every nation that acts wickedly.
                      As for Christian missionaries, they civilized the heathen. Perhaps they need to work on some our degenerate ones here in America.

                  • Valentin

                    Whether or not society accepts it does not matter when you don’t gain a single ounce of good from it, tell what you accomplish when you sodomize a gay guy. Oh wait you don’t accomplish anything just like all the perverts in prison who rape each other. Even the ancient Greek writer Aristophanes has a character who makes fun of the crowd for having turnips up their butts.

                    • 65snake

                      But you do gain good from from a loving, committed, long term relationship, and denying equal rights does do harm.
                      Just because you think anal sex is icky doesn’t mean that you get to forbid it for everyone. It means that YOU don’t do it.
                      You really need to get over your obsession with gay sex. Is your marriage only about the sex, or are there other components to it? Guess what, it’s the same for gay people!!!!
                      And here’s the other thing….we follow the constitution in this country, not your worthless book.

                    • ICCC1978

                      With a homosexual lifestyle, it won’t be a long-term relationship- one or both will die of HIV-AIDS.
                      As for the Constitution, the writers and signers of it would be sick of how degraded our society has gotten. John Adams said that our Constitution was made for a moral people, and would not work for any other.
                      William Blackstone’s book of law influenced our nation’s Constitution. He based his law books on–you guessed it — the Bible.
                      The clauses that homosexuals use to say they are being denied their due process would not have been accepted by the framers of the Constitution because perversion was not allowed, sanctioned, or celebrated, but rather punished.

                • Karma

                  Wow. I love revisionist history. Homosexual acts have NOT always been condemned. Sparta, the Ancient Celts, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Native North Americans, Aztecs, Ancient China….shall I continue? Perhaps you should study history, rather than spout nonsense.
                  When you say “have always been condemned” it is more appropriate to say “..have always been condemned by the Abrahamic faiths since Moses”.

                  • Louis

                    It is actually revisionist history that claims that homosexuality was popular in other cultures at other times in history. None of the cultures you listed have ever promoted homosexuality, though all cultures have had people that deviated from the norm. It proves the point that it is not only a Judeo Christian belief, but a belief based on the obvious sexual complimetarity of men and women and the need for both to be committed to be sexually reproductive and to raise their children. The importance of lifelong commitment between one man and one woman is a belief held in high esteem by Ancient non Christian faiths including Greece, Roman and Egyptian cultures, Nordic clans, Celts, Aztecs, Native Americans, All other established world religions (Hindu, Islam, Shinto, Tao, Buddhist, etc..) have all promoted the heterosexual norm for the obvious reason that it is what is required for reproduction. While ancient Greece and Rome were more tolerant of sexual deviancy, no one built their life around it, nor would that have been tolerated. “gay marriage” was never celebrated at any time in any of these cultures. homosexual behavior was looked upon as a cheap thrill, like having an affair or a mistress.

                    • James Tarr

                      Wrap your tiny brain around this one. What if gays and straights ARE the norm? What if there is always some percentage of human-kind that normally have a distributions. Gay people have existed throughout world history.

                    • Valentin

                      It doesn’t matter what the “norm” is putting your dick in someones ass or face does not do anything good. It is dirty, sick and wrong you want to explain the benefit of doing such a thing be my guest.

                  • James Tarr

                    Oh also there is a tribe in Papua New Guinea where the men practice
                    these “acts”… that is until the Christian missionaries came in. Now,
                    because of their meddling, there are some beginning to feel shame.

                  • ICCC1978

                    Where is Sparta, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Aztecs, and so on. Sparta is no more.
                    Ancient Greece and Egypt had to be liberated by “Christianized” Americans and British in WW2.
                    Aztecs- gone!
                    Maybe true Christianity does work after all!

                • James Tarr

                  Incorrect. These “acts” have not always been condemned. Read a bit of history please before you make these blanket statements.

                  • Louis

                    I don’t read revisionist history. It has only been in the last 10 – 15 years that so called “history” claims to show great support for homosexuality. Sadly many from the current generation cannot think for themselves and see only what they are shown. The last time propaganda was this effective was during Nazi Germany. They too claimed that religion was hurting people and that the real truth was different from what everyone believed.

              • BenjaminLatrobe

                “We all have moral consciences which if you have half a brain has nothing to do with Religion…!”

              • LeticiaVelasquez

                This article is not about so called gay marriage itself. Its about those of you who believe in it forcing your morality upon those of us who don’t. Its about bullying. Those who used to require tolerance are the last to show it to those with whom they disagree.

                • JessicaSideways

                  No, it is about making sure that business owners do not get to discriminate against people. It is not tolerance to tolerate intolerance.

                  It is sad that we have to legislate tolerance so that discrimination is punished, rather than people doing the right thing but apparently, there are people who will use their business as a vehicle to exercise intolerance.

                  • Guest

                    There is no right to deviant desires.

                    • JessicaSideways

                      What is deviant is pretending you are straight when you are gay (like ex-gay people do) and encouraging people to go to ex-gay “therapy” instead of accepting themselves and learning to love themselves.

                    • Louis

                      People who choose to leave a gay lifestyle do so of their own free will because it helps them become who they are meant to be. It is a fulfilling journey. To claim that there are adults who “pretend” and need to stop thinking for themselves and do what you insist is to claim that by definition all ex gay people are mental incompetents who should not be allowed to choose for them,selves. can i see the court paperwork where you gained power of attorney or these people? In what ways do you think you are better? How truly vain to insult those who dare to disagree with you, who is the bigot now?

                  • Valentin

                    Again with this anti discrimination bullshit when are you going to realize it is as stupid as allowing a one legged man work as a fireman or become a soldier. Due to “discrimination” my great Grandfather Anton Elsasser wasn’t forced to fight for the Nazis because he was injured from grenade shrapnel from WWI in the trenches, but thats discrimination because apparently in modern society everyone should do the same thing deserves the same stuff and isn’t allowed to disagree with a bunch of loud mouthed perverts bitching and moaning about how they want “gay rights” on a Catholic forum.

                • Austrimo

                  how about the bullying done to not let gay people get married in the first place. Marriage is not owned by any one religion and has been around before christiantiy and judaism. Separation from church and state should mean christians cannot dictate if a gay man cannot marry a gay man because they think its immoral. That is an opinion. I am not saying the death threats are right. It isn’t wrong to ask to boycott intolerance though. Imagine if Rosa Parks didn’t sit in the front of that bus. Christians have bullied their way across history. Remember the Crusades. Fun times right. If your for intolerance how about you move to a country that celebrates hate instead of diversity.

                  • LeticiaVelasquez

                    Morality has always been legislated by laws, hence murder and theft are illegal. The founders never dreamed that homosexuals would come out of the closet, plead for tolerance, then demand that everyone approve of their sinful lifestyle choices. They assumed that America would always be led by Christians who respected God’s plan for marriage.

                    • MapDark

                      They also owned negroes .

                      I don’t think they are a very good guideline for human behaviour then , are they?

                  • Guest

                    There is no bullying in denying what ought to be denied. Relativism has corrupted so many minds that truth is obscured but deviant desires.

                  • BSDN

                    Marriage is something that has been around from time immemorial. Without going into the birds and the bees, it’s how children get conceived, born and raised in a family. SSMs across the board are barren relationships. IOW while not all marriages produce children, “SSM” can never produce children. Which means that SSMs must resort to adoption or artificial insemination. IOW whatever they are they aren’t marriages and no amount of pretending can make them what they aren’t. You might as well complain that the Boy Scouts don’t allow girls to join.

                    Two, if SSM are allowed, why not incest or polyamory? At least they got the basic plumbing issues figured out.
                    Three, the Crusades? This is World History 101. Islam attacked and conquered the MidEast. When Islam prevented Christians and pilgrims from practicing their faith or visiting, then the Crusades were started to take the MidEast back from the Muslims. IOW the Crusades were a response to the Islamic Crusade (Jihad) against the Christian and Jewish infidels.
                    IOW the Muslims got no room to complain about the Crusades.

                  • Valentin

                    If a guy who happens to have a slight attraction to other men wants to marry a girl he loves he can do that because marriage inherently includes a man and a woman inviting life into the world. I can say for one I love and admire many men but I am not attracted to them in a erotic way nor would I sodomize them.

                • jomotro

                  Exactly! It is about homosexuals bullying Christians, forcing their morality on them, and having zero tolerance for their Constitutional rights.

              • Louis

                I have gay friends and I’ve seen the “quality” of their relationships. Short term open relationships followed by trips to bath houses and sexual encounters in public and arrests. Yes, many people who have gay friends know the truth of their lives and how 50 – 200 partners a year is common place and HIV infection runs rampant at epidemic rates. I’m against homosexual behavior because real people are really dying. I’m sorry that you are defending addicted people’s “right” to kill themselves and others through compulsive addiction to sex. The church offers a far better choice.

                • Paul McGuire

                  I don’t deny that some enjoy that sort of relationship but they are not the ones trying to get married. It is offensive to suggest that because some gay men have sex with many partners all of them do. There are also a number of straight men who have just as many partners.

                  It would be nice if rather than railing against the “gay lifestyle” people railed against the “promiscuous lifestyle.” Though I would defend the rights of people to live promiscuously I also recognize it can be harmful in many ways.

                  For the gay couples who are committed and do not believe in open relationships marriage is a commitment they make truly. I am marrying my fiance (a man) in a few months and we are committed and monogamous.

                  • Art Deco

                    You again.

                    At one of the other blog in which I participate, comments autoclose after four days. A similar policy would be advisable here.

                  • Valentin

                    Marriage includes a man and a woman allowing life into the world and if a gay guy wants to get married I sure there might be a girl out there for them but it is simply just two guys in suits without a woman.

                • James Tarr

                  And straight people don’t visit sex shops, strip joints, sex clubs, or visit prostitutes? Puleez! Look upon yourselves before you make these accusations.

                  • Louis

                    They do less of those things. Deviant sexual behavior is present everywhere, but it is condemned and seen less in heterosexuality which is rooted in faith, marriage and family. Deviancy is celebrated in homosexuality and runs rampant in that environment.

                  • Valentin

                    A guy who whores around is not straight okay they are also a pervert, and I am looking at my self and guess what I don’t go to strip joints and brothels.

                  • Louis

                    Poor argument. Yes, heterosexuals cheat on their spouses and have open marriages and visit sex shops and prostitutes. In the heterosexual world it is the exception and it is frowned upon. All hell breaks loose when spouses are caught in adultery.

                    In the homosexual world. It is the rule and not the exception. gay couples visit the sex shops together and mutually agree on open relationships since it would be pointless to expect monogamy and undivided attention from a gay partner. By their actions, they make it clear that their partners are just not worth it

            • Ellen Chmiel

              Since gayness is intrinsic, it is God-given. I support gay rights; coming out of the closet is healthy. Why aren’t they morally licit since animals, who do not have reason, have so much gay coupling? Google Laysen albatross–researcher redid sexing since she was sure she made a mistake. She didn’t. Why did God make so many gay people? It’s NEVER been a choice.

              • jar

                Your logic is astounding. “Gayness” is a social construct. It is a political ideology. Same sex attraction is a cross not health.

                • BenjaminLatrobe

                  “Total Ignorance”

                • James Tarr

                  The hell? Gayness is not a social construct. Saying so would mean the Straightness would also me a social construct.

              • Louis

                “Gayness” is a sinful behavior that responds to change efforts. God empowers people to leave sinful lives. It is activists who condemn people to a life of sin by refusing to accept that change occurs everyday for those who desire it. Elevating behavior to the level of identity is delusional and harmful to those who do so.

                • BenjaminLatrobe

                  You are obviously not an expert on your topic because everything you wrote is false. You are living in a make believe world; a fantasy which has no bearing on REALITY…!

                • JessicaSideways

                  There is no such thing as sin or god. These are social constructs and it is Christians that condemn people to feeling guilty for things that they shouldn’t feel guilty about.

                  We don’t elevate behaviour to identity. Gay people are simply people with same-sex attraction – it is a statement of fact. But as a minority, we form this as our identity to communicate how we are different from the majority.

                  • Guest

                    It is pathology and used as a political identity.

                    • JessicaSideways

                      No, it is not a pathology – believing in a magical sky daddy for no good reason and being willing to hurt other people in the name of this belief is a pathology, however.

                    • James Tarr

                      I was thinking the exact same thing about the Christian Right. Funny.

                  • ICCC1978

                    That is plain foolishness and poor logic.
                    To the murderer that has no remorse, he ought to feel guilty. Why?
                    To the thief who justified his theft, he ought to feel guilty. Why?
                    To the rapist that rapes his victim, yet has no remorse, he ought to feel guilty. Why?
                    It is Christianity that says it is WRONG, not social constructs.
                    If you ever get stolen from, Christianity ought to make that thief guilty.
                    If you are ever raped or murdered(God forbid), Christianity ought to make them feel guilty.
                    Social constructs will not get the work done.

                • James Tarr

                  To even consider your comment, you have to accept that there is a God. As of yet, no one has been able to prove a belief. Whether you like it or not, we live in a secular society driven by secular law, not a theocracy. Sorry about that. I hear Saudi Arabia is looking for more of your kind though.

                  • ICCC1978

                    A few minutes after you die , you’ll believe.

              • BenjaminLatrobe

                “RIGHT-ON ELLEN…!”

              • LeticiaVelasquez

                Show me the gay gene. Instrinsic, nonsense! Sin has always been with us, both gay and straight, but now we are being forced to accept it or lose our livelihood.

            • kitcumbie

              You are no one’s judge. You are no moral executioner. You are merely another human being and not a very good one at that.

              • Valentin

                Lol look at that you are condeming him for judging and yet you are judging him in the process. WOW

            • SteveSando

              How is it immoral?

            • TheKnowerseeker

              Wow, you’re right Captain Obvious!

          • Adam__Baum

            It’s funny how you guys trot out polls, but always resort to Courts.
            Fascists.

            • thisoldspouse

              Exactly!

          • Centipede Galaga

            The KKK have always been a small percentage that wielded disproportionate power of public opinion. They used similar tactics as well. Hate and fear-mongering are the tactics of those whose only goal is to gain their own private interest at the cost of the common good. I will pray that you and all who hold similar opinions will have a change of heart and let other people have their God-given right to follow the conscience without treating them inhumanly or bullying them. And of course I will pray for your soul because you are of equal dignity with all humanity and equally in need of Christ’s grace and mercy (as every individual person is, especially myself).

            • tom

              God-given rights flow from the “natural law”, not the unnatural law.

            • JessicaSideways

              You will find that the KKK, even today, discriminate against gay people as well using their Christian worldview.

              • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

                It’s always funny when you anti-Christian bigots get backed into a corner by your own arguments, you either trot out the KKK or Hitler.

                • JessicaSideways

                  You do realise that it’s not a fallacy when you actually share this opinion with Hitler and the KKK. Both hate homosexuals like you and have it in their policies to persecute gay people.

                  I’m not a bigot for disagreeing with your bigotry.

                • James Tarr

                  If the truth fits….

          • tom

            Our dictators on court benches…mostly Trotskyites…are pushing this chaos. they did the same thing in Russia when they created the USSR. Atheistic communists.

            • JessicaSideways

              So treating people with dignity is “chaos”. Lovely.

          • somnipod

            Not only that, but Catholics have been shown to be the largest supporters of this lifestyle… sad

            • BenjaminLatrobe

              They are also the largest group of child molesters….sad

            • JessicaSideways

              It’s not a lifestyle.

              • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

                Yes, it actually is and it’s a choice.

                • JessicaSideways

                  You know, it’s hard being so charitable to believe that everyone is smart enough to not believe the stupid shit you just stated. Being gay is not a lifestyle, nor is it a choice.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    ” treating people with dignity ” sic.

                  • ICCC1978

                    Please provide evidence of a “gay gene”. There is none! It’s a choice, honey. You can your mind if you REALLY want to be set free from it and get the help you need, namely, Jesus.

                • James Tarr

                  The sooner that you accept that it isn’t a choice the sooner you see that all the pieces fall into place and you’ll understand your opposition.

                  • ICCC1978

                    Please show me the evidence of a “gay gene”. Is none!!
                    It’s a choice.

            • James Tarr

              Define “lifestyle” Christians always throw this term around and I am unsure what it really means

        • Valentin

          Don’t get to naive just because these particular loud perverts are a minority doesn’t mean that there aren’t other perverse people all throughout the US for example people who watch porn or those who fornicate with public support or at least media support. All I am saying is that the devil has many parts in his tongue and people acting gay is one out of many things that are in his favor.

          • Jerry Reiter

            Are you aware that every medical association in the free world says sexual orientation is not a choice? And that the last two major ex-gay ministries have folded up and shut down after admitting nobody had changed from homosexual to heterosexual after 40 years of trying?

            • Louis

              Actually an organization abandoned the ministries they once supported. all of the ministries are still in existence and still helping people live lives according to God’s will for their sexuality. Sadly people misquote things to their advantage. Look for “Restored Hope” ministries and learn the true story of those who have always and still continue to offer effective and lasting change that means a great deal to a great many people.

              The bottom line is that the people who say they have changes are the experts on the subject. Who could know more about the inner workings of their hearts and minds? It does not matter how you or others define change. What matters is that many people have a lasting and meaningful change for themselves and they are pleased with who they have become.

              • ICCC1978

                Excellent!!
                You’ve been there and done it!
                Victory!

            • musicacre

              Medical associations is your infallibility model?

        • BenjaminLatrobe

          “Stop name calling you fool…!”

        • Timothy D Little

          A sword? really? I have no hope for intelligent life.

        • Jerry Reiter

          There are 67 abominations in the bible, but 66 are forgotten. The remaining one is misused against a minority group.

        • Neil Ruth

          Wow, you really are an idiot! Please fuck off and die. Many thanks.

          • ICCC1978

            Profanity is unnecessary!

      • Iowcatalyst Woody

        Christianity is a fairy story same as any other religion grow the fuck up

      • Jerry Reiter

        “I used to be against gay marriage, then I found out it won’t be mandatory.” – Jon Stewart

        • ICCC1978

          Nothing is sadder to watch than a backslidden Bible believer greasing not only his own , but others, way to hell.
          “How the Mighty have fallen”.

    • HigherCalling

      Perhaps we are witnessing the inevitable results of the system the Framers put in place to protect “the free practice of religion.” It seems that protecting religion by way of a deliberately Godless constitution, empowering the secular State over and above any religious truth, hasn’t been able to sustain “religious liberty” the way the Enlightened Framers (presumably) hoped. It seems that in creating what is, in effect, an atheistic State, the seeds of eventual tyranny find fertile soil. Sustaining real liberty is impossible apart from Truth.

      • Steve Frank

        The framers simply took the Judao-Christian moral framework for granted. It never even entered their minds that their words would be so twisted by future generations. If they come back from the dead they would not even recognize the nation they founded.

        • tom

          They believed in the “natural law”, too.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Yes, they do, but most of them believe, with Calvin, that “The law of nature has only one purpose: namely to make man inexcusable before God. Since it becomes manifest in the dictates of conscience, the latter too has no other object but that of depriving man of the pretext of ignorance and making clear his responsibility before the judgment of God. All this, however, does not imply that in this way man can attain a real knowledge of the divine will. ‘As man is enclosed by the darkness of error, the natural law gives him scarce an inkling of the kind of service which is pleasing to God.’ The ability to distinguish between good and evil have ceased to be healthy and intact in the mind of fallen man”

        • HigherCalling

          I agree that the Framers wouldn’t recognize the nation they founded were they to return today. Whether they took the Judeo-Christian moral framework for granted is debatable. As products of the Enlightenment, which itself was a product of the Reformation, they were already marginalizing God. The secular nation they designed was already on its way to the atheistic State we see today. More proof, in my mind, that Protestantism ends in atheism. Whatever their intent, it seems that the Constitution, which now enshrines in law all manner of violations of natural law and Christian truth, has a fundamental flaw that is directly linked to intentionally rejecting any mention of God — placing that document above any greater truth — making the State all-powerful. The door was opened to the eventual loss of liberties we see today, and to tyranny, which is the political conclusion of atheism.

          • Steve Frank

            No question many of the Framers were Deists. Yet most of them still held the Christian ethical system in highest regard, believing it to be consistent with natural law.

            I reject your premise that Protestantism ends in atheism. Whatever disagreements you may hold with them theologically, your typical Evangelical Protestant holds more tightly to traditional morality than your typical Catholic. I say that as someone who has lived in both worlds, spending seasons of my life in both Evangelicalism and Catholicism. Mainline Protestantism is a different story, but that’s because it has given up on biblical authority. Although they would sharply disagree over issues of interpretation, Evangelical Protestants and traditional Catholics both hold to the authority of Scripture. Liberal Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have rejected biblical authority, which is why conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants find themselves as bedfellows on moral issues far more frequently than they do with their liberal counterparts in their own faith tradition.

            • Adam__Baum

              Steve, I am somewhat in agreement with you, but the typical evangelical is more tightly bound to a subset of morality. They divorce and remarry without compunction for example.

              • Steve Frank

                I agree with you about divorce and marriage. The degree to which that is now accepted in Evangelicalism is scandalous. Especially considering that Evangelicals profess to believe that adultery is the only acceptable grounds of divorce (based on Jesus’ words in Matthew’s gospel). But let’s not ignore the fact that many Catholics have found a back door means of remarriage with the abuse of annulments. My aunt was married for 14 years, had five kids and then got divorced followed by the granting of an annulment from the Catholic Church on grounds that her husband was “psychologically immature” at the time of their marriage (l mean, couldn’t everybody claim they were psychologically immature at 21??). In any case, I think this goes to show that as sinners even Christians will look for ways to justify their sinful moral choices, especially the tough ones.

                • Adam__Baum

                  I agree with your last sentence, which is why I disagree with
                  “theologically, your typical Evangelical Protestant holds more tightly to traditional morality than your typical Catholic.”

                  Your point about your aunt, stipulating for the sake of argument that it is an egregious error of a Canonical court (knowing the details of only one annulment, where there was a finding of a defect on the part of the husband, but being workplace friends with the wife-I think the declaration should have been, “you are both idiots”) is scandalous because it is official.

                  Remember, this very argument about the state deformation of marriage is only possible because Martin Luther and Henry Tudor asserted it to be a civil contract and an affair of the state, not a Church Sacrament.

                  The Evangelicalism of thirty years ago is not the same as now, and it is following “mainline” Protestantism, because “sola scriptura” has proven over five centuries to be a source of, not an innoculant against, error.

            • Andy Fox

              Most of the Founding Fathers were not Deists, they were orthodox Christian (I don’t mean denominationally, e.g., Eastern Orthodox, I mean with respect to their theology, as opposed to heterodox). Read Original Intent, by David Barton.

            • Valentin

              Protestantism inherently includes the denial of the requirement to be a part of the body of Christ that only The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Christian Churches can offer. Therefore they deny Gods presence making them at least in part atheist.

              • James Tarr

                You can’t be “part atheist” Atheists don’t believe in a god or gods, period.

                • Valentin

                  I said “in part” not “part” it’s a figure of speech and you know it and if Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God and if protestants deny that being one with the Son of God is the way for us to be with God than they are denying the Son of God who is God.

                  • James Tarr

                    And this whole “Son of God” is moot if God doesn’t exist, which renders your arguments as merely hot air.

                    • Valentin

                      First off he does exist, and second what the hell is an atheist doing on a Catholic forum any ways?

            • jomotro

              There is a lot of question that many of the Framers were Deists. This is an argument thrown out there by liberal professors, but is not grounded in facts.

            • James Tarr

              Yet most of them still held the Christian ethical system in highest regard, believing it to be consistent with natural law.

              Kinda like when Jefferson had a kid with his slave? True Christian values on display right dere!

            • ICCC1978

              While I agree with your observations in paragraph 2, I must disagree with the assertion in the 1st paragraph that our Founders were deists. Ben Franklin said, and I paraphrase in part, “The longer I live I see that God intervenes in the affairs of men. If a sparrow can not fall to the ground without Him knowing it, shall He not see our righteous cause.” George Washington , John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and many of the Continental Congress would ardently disagree with you, noting that many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers of the Gospel, one (whose statute stands in the US Capitol) with his clerical robe partially removed to show his Colonist uniform. This is the Godly heritage our nation has, and we should be proud of it and defend it!

          • slainte

            What is the connection, if any, between deism, freemasonry, the founders, and the Constitution?

            • HigherCalling

              First, I am no expert on your question. I am merely an amateur reader of such things, and my reading is far from complete. Admittedly, I read from sources that tend to uphold my instinctive Catholic beliefs. Here is what I know about the connections (very briefly). Deism was the theological foundation of Freemasonry. Deism has been called the religion of the Enlightenment, which itself is traceable directly to the Protestant Reformation. Freemasonry gave to Deism a universal, ritualistic church that Deism lacked. The many themes of Deism, expanded by Freemasonry, include a denial of Christ’s Incarnation, Atonement and Divinity, a rejection of the Holy Trinity (substituted by the “Author of the Universe” or “Nature’s God” from the Declaration of Independence), a rejection of the details of revealed religion (emphasizing instead a religion of individualism, naturalism, rationalism, and reason), a rejection of traditional religion (adhering instead to secularism and “freethinking”), and an imperative to allow the State to control the church.

              Masonic lodges were established in America in the 1730s through the work of Benjamin Franklin. Several prominent Founders were also Masons: Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Sam Adams, including up to 50+ signers of the Declaration. Jefferson and Monroe were most surely Deists and Unitarians. Four of the first five first US presidents began their studies during the climax of Deism and its teachings at universities, which influenced nearly every educated man involved in the Founding. The American Republic was the brain-child of Enlightenment-influenced, ruling elite Deists — not of traditional Christians intent on establishing even a marginally Protestant commonwealth. Those truly conservative Protestants, who surely existed during the Founding and later advocated for a Christian constitution, were asking for something far different than what the Founders had established or were at all willing to alter. The Founding was Deistic (good luck finding the Christian God in the Declaration), and thus secular, and thus Christ-less, by design. From that comes a Godless constitution, which can never define liberty in its fullness or protect it in a lasting way.

              • slainte

                Thank you for being brave and stating the truth.
                Is it possible that liberalism, socialism, and communism are the present day evolutionary byproduct of deism and freemasonry… a consequence of the inexorable separation of Liberty from Truth?

                • JessicaSideways

                  No.

            • JessicaSideways

              That which conspiracy theorists make up. ;)

              • slainte

                You are just too equal for me….comrade.

        • JessicaSideways

          But the great thing is that the constitution was framed so that people couldn’t push their personal beliefs onto others. Thus, we are achieving equality and stopping discrimination.

          And thus, our morality is evolving and becoming superior to that of the religious fundamentalist.

          • Steve Frank

            Wrong.

            ALL laws involve “pushing beliefs onto others”, including all laws against “discrimination” (laws that you evidently support). When constitutional amendments were added in the 19th century that banned slavery and established rights for African Americans, the “personal beliefs” of the Northern abolitionists were forced onto Southern slave owners (who clearly had quite different “personal beliefs”). We may both agree that those constitutional amendments banning slavery were good things. But let’s not kid ourselves into believing that Northern abolitionists did not force their “personal beliefs” onto others. They most certainly did do that. Likewise, you may think anti-discrimination laws that force religious people to provide services for gay weddings is a good thing, but please stop pretending that your side is not doing the very same thing you claim to protest against….your side is forcing it’s “personal beliefs” onto religious people.

            The second myth here is that morality is “evolving and becoming superior”. Superior according to whom? You falsely presume that morality always improves over time and never devolves. That is nothing but chronological snobbery. I’ve brought this up before in other comment threads, but one of the most egregious examples of progressive chronological snobbery was the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, when the liberal progressive establishment (including the US Supreme Court) pushed and legalized for forced sterilization of the “feeble minded” and others who were believed to be contaminating the human gene pool, thus impeding human “progress”. The only ones loudly protesting the whole movement were conservative Christians who were dismissed as being “behind the times”, “on the wrong side of history”, “against human progress”, etc. It wasn’t until Hitler took the next logical step from eugenics to genocide that the eugenics movement was finally exposed as the moral regression it truly was and the idea of “moral evolution” was revelaled as a delusion. Morality does not always “improve”. And the other problem is that the definition of “improve” is itself subjective. Who decides what moral beliefs are “superior”? Time doesn’t.

            • JessicaSideways

              Maybe so and there were a lot of people that used Christianity to justify the atrocities against minorities. Jefferson Davis used the Bible to justify the secession and the war against the US. Banning interracial marriage was predicated on religious beliefs and, for the most part, we recognise that the people who fought against interracial marriage were wrong.

              I think that it is okay to say no to people’s personal opinions being enshrined in law, and to prefer one law over another, in favour of equality – of empowering people. I think it is okay to tell religious people that discriminating against gay people in the civil arena, outside of the bounds of their religion, is not okay.

              • Steve Frank

                Yes, and Christianity was also used to JUSTIFY the liberation of African Americans. I hate to break it to you, but the Northern abolitionists of the 1860s were not secular progressives. For the most part, they were northern evangelical Christians. Fast forward 100 years later. Who was leading the charge for the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s? A secular progressive? No. A Republican Baptist minister named Martin Luther King Jr. who constantly quoted from the Bible to justify his crusade for civil rights.

                The only reason some in the South tried to use the Bible to justify racism was because they knew that it was the Bible that the abolitionists and civil rights leaders were using to fuel their movement. And so they desperately searched the Bible for loopholes to counter the abolitionist arguments.

                There is simply nothing in the Bible that prohibits interracial marriage. The Jews in the Old Testament were forbidden from marrying outside the nation but that was because other nations worshiped different gods. The only marriages the Bible prohibits are those that involve mixed religions, not mixed races.

                As far as your comment that “banning interracial marriage was predicated on religious beliefs”, that statement is simply false. Do you know what other historically critical event was occurring in the West while Christians were spilling their blood to free the slaves during the Civil War? Charles Darwin was penning some of the most cringe-worthy racist comments ever to be published in print in his Origin of Species. He, along with his followers in the “secular progressive” community were propagating the idea that the “superiority” of the white European races was “proof” that evolution was true and still taking place. They predicted that evolution would eventually kill off all the “inferior” races. The men who published these ideas were the leading crusaders of the movement to banish God and Christianity from the public square. And guess who was protesting the loudest against these new ideas? Yes, the Christians. So while the “educated progressives” were heralding the new gospel of racial superiority, the “backward and uneducated” Christians of the North were dying so that slaves could be free.

                I probably can’t blame you though for many of your false ideas about Christianity and it’s influence on history. I have to speculate that you were “educated” in a modern secular university. Most of these institutions are hotbeds of anti-Western, anti-Christian sentiment, with many professors that are zealous to proselytize for their pet political ideologies, even if it means they need to engage in dishonest historical revisionism.

                • JessicaSideways

                  My ideas aren’t false. Even though there are SOME Christians that actively worked to fight racism, they were the more liberal Christians – the ones that would support the move to legalise marriage equality.

                  Your speculation that I was educated in a modern secular university is also false, as after leaving high school – where I was the President of the local chapter of Fellowship of Christian Athletes – I went to Abilene Christian University. I became an atheist after reading the Bible cover to cover and seeing that it was a horrible book that promoted murder, slavery, infanticide, filicide, etc. I could no longer support the Bible because it was just too evil.

                  As for your comment on professors that “proselytize their pet political ideologies” in secular schools, since going to secular schools, I have found no such thing. When people get educated, they are more likely to leave Christianity and with the more education one receives, the less likely they are to believe in lies like Christianity. There is a reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.

                  The racist views of Christian groups such as the Ku Klux Klan come from the Bible. I have heard them cite Exodus 33:16, Leviticus 20:24, Joshua 23:12-13, Deuteronomy 7:3, Proverbs 23:27, Psalm 144:11-12 and Hosea 5:6-7. If you attempt to assert that these verses were somehow misused, keep in mind that many people did not think so and what you are doing has a name – historical revisionism. I think that your children (or perhaps grandchildren) will try to back away from Christianity’s crusade to discriminate against gay people like you are trying to back away from Christianity’s legacy of racism.

                  As for saddling rationalists with the burden of eugenics – sorry, that is on you. Social Darwinism was the brain child of Herbert Spencer and protestant nonconformism. Additionally, the most famous eugenicist in history, Adolf Hitler, was a roman catholic and was backed by the Roman Catholic Church. In Mein Kampf, Hitler talks at length about his Roman Catholic upbringing and asserts his activities are an outgrowth from his faith.

                  Also, slavery was endorsed in the Bible. There are even specific instructions on how to treat your slaves. In fact, the work of abolitionists and the people who ran the Underground Railroad was specifically banned in the Bible, in Deuteronomy 23:15-16. Here are just a few more passages that endorsed slavery in the Bible:

                  Exodus 21:20-21; 21:26-27; 21:1-4; 21:7-8; 21:16; 22:3, Deuteronomy 15:12-18; 24:7, Leviticus 25:44-46; 25:48-53; 19:20-22; 25:39; II Kings 4:1

                  So tell me, would you call a person who ignores the Bible and does what they want a Christian or that their actions are Christian? They may have believed that they were Christians but they were acting secularly in this matter, not religiously. The fact that your make believe god would either put these things in the Bible or inspire men to put these things in the Bible is sickening.

                  The Bible is immoral and so is Christianity. We see it in this country’s history of racism, we see it in misogyny ordered by the church and we see it in Christian homophobia. Your attempt to deny history is interesting, but wrongheaded all the same.

                  • Steve Frank

                    Christians who fought against slavery in the 1860s were not “liberals”. They were orthodox Christians who believed in the Bible, unlike contemporary liberals most of whom would deny the truth of the Bible. I don’t see any liberal pro-gay marriage Christian pastors out there today thumping the Bible like MLK did. That’s because there is nothing in the Bible that supports their cause. However the idea that all men are created equal can be supported from the Bible which is why it was Christians like MLK who were at the forefront of the civil rights movement.

                    Also, you can’t take examples like the Ku Klux Klan, Herbert Spencer and Adolf Hitler and argue that because these people claimed they were Christians, that means Christianity is to blame for their ideas or actions. Where do you think Herbert Spencer got his ideas about social Darwinism? From Jesus Christ? From his Protestant upbringing? No, he got them from Darwin. If Darwinian evolution is what produced all human intelligence, then it makes perfect sense to conclude that evolution continues today and that some races are indeed inferior to others. How could humans have evolved to their current level of intelligence unless the inferior gene pools weren’t already weeded out by past evolution? And what reason would we have to believe that process is not continuing right now? Sorry but the whole idea of all men being equal does not come from Darwin or evolution. In fact, the engine of evolution is the very opposite…the premise is that all forms of life are not equal and as the inferior forms die off, the entire gene pool is improved as the superior life forms live on to reproduce. The idea of all men being equal comes from Christianity, not evolution or science.

                    As far as Hitler, like any politician he made many favorable remarks about Christianity during his rise to power in a Christian country, but as soon as he seized full power he turned against Christianity with a vengeance. That’s when he revelaled his true feelings about Christianity. Just one example of his many anti-Christian remarks: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew” (from Table Talk).

                    I’m sorry but if you are going to blame any evils of history on Christianity, you have to prove that such evils were a direct result of someone’s Christian beliefs. Simply pointing out the evil actions of people who called themselves “Christians” at a time in history where almost everyone in Western society called themselves a Christian proves nothing. Stalin was an atheist like you…so can I blame all his atrocities on atheism itself?

                    It’s interesting that all your Bible quotes condemning Christianity are from the Old Testament, which was during a time when each nation worshiped it’s own god, which is why the Jews were commanded to keep separate from other nations. The issue was not race, it was religion. Once monotheism was embraced in the New Testament, you don’t ready anything in the Bible about races of people being kept separate. In fact you read the very opposite in the teachings of Christ and the apostles. In any case, even the OT was never against other races. It was against other gods which just happened to frequently coincide with different racial groups that worshipped their own gods. But there are many examples of men from other races who converted to Judaism in the OT and they were welcomed into the faith and treated with respect (Rahab for example).

                    As far as slavery, your ideas of it are shaped by your understanding of the pre Civil War experiences of blacks in the American South. But that was nothing like the slavery of the OT which was more like indentured servanthood. People often sold themselves into slavery to pay debts, and Jews were commanded to free slaves at the year of Jubilee. In any case there is no comparison between that and what happened with blacks in 18th century America where Africans were kidnapped, sold, and had no ability to obtain freedom. The Bible condemns kidnapping in both testaments.

                    But if you really want to attack Christianity, you should try to stick to the New Testament since Christians believe that many of the laws of the Old Testament were for that time and context (a theocracy). We don’t live under a theocracy anymore.

                    • ICCC1978

                      Outstanding!! Thank you for the defense of the True Gospel.

                  • ICCC1978

                    How the mighty have fallen.(2 Samuel , chapter 1)

            • musicacre

              What a great reply! Thank you for that!

          • Louis

            Morality is a constant by definition, it is not evolving to include immoral behavior is not a sign of progress, but a sign of corruption and delusion.

          • ICCC1978

            Your view can be summed up with one phrase by Al Gore,” The Constitution is a living, breathing document.” Code Words: “We’ll change it to what we want it to mean.” In other words, moral relativism- we really don’t have a Constitution- we make the rules as we go. DANGEROUS!

      • Adam__Baum

        On the contrary, we are witnessing the inevitable results of subsequent generations ignoring and contorting the Constitution, which was a check on federal power. They wouldn’t have countenanced a federal income tax as it is allowed by the Sixteenth Amendment or Prohibition or a lot of other idiotic codicils we take for granted.

        The Constitution was meant to be the “by-laws” to the Declaration’s “articles of incorporation”, which used the phrase “endowed by their Creator”.

        I can show you by-laws of charitable religious organizations that make scant or no mention of their religious character-because that’s a matter settled in their formation. The framers were not saints, but sinners. They held innumerable prejudices and ignorances of their day.

        I suspect however, I might share more concerns about the subordination of the Church to the State with these revolutionary era deists, than I would with modern nomimal Catholic jurists like Anthony Kennedy, or any elective polician, bearing that surname and hailing from Massachuesetts.

        What’s a worse sin, to suffer under the delusion that God is remote and indifferent, because you are steeped in generations of ignorance, or to suffer under the delusion you are a god, when you weere raised in the Faith? In short, I think I ight rather have faced judgment as a framer than as Ted Kennedy.

        • HigherCalling

          (Sorry for the overly-long reply). In a roundabout way we are in agreement. The Constitution has been abused. The question is whether something inherent to it allowed for those abuses. The contortions and distortions that have been done (legally, apparently) reveal a design-flaw that many people recognized as obvious from the get-go. That flaw lies in its utter rejection of any authority greater than itself — of God, particularly the Christian Trinity, in Whom true liberty is found. The elevation of Liberty above Truth was bound to result in abuses and in an eventual erosion of freedom. The Framers may never have thought that the greatest violation of natural law and Christian truth — the killing of our most innocent citizens in abortion — would become “constitutional.” Yet, there it is, firmly enshrined as lawful in what is considered by some to be one of the world’s great documents that is unyielding on natural law. That abortion is considered bad law and a violation of the Constitution by many is really irrelevant, because as it stands, it is Constitutional. The same can be said of federally-run health care, or of same-sex “marriage” (which is coming). These violations of principles that the Framers may have considered unconstitutional matter little, because they are (or will be) called lawful and will be backed fully by the policing power of the State, which recognizes no greater authority over itself. Somewhere in the design, these abuses, these evils, exploited an opening that may have been closed off by the official mention that America would always be under the social Kingship of Christ. (Of course, that describes a Catholic nation, something the Enlightenment-influenced, deistic Framers would have scoffed at and rejected entirely).

          After Obamacare’s Constitutionality, I am no longer surprised by anything that is called Constitutional. Philosophical principles are not Constitutional matters, because the Constitution is accountable only to popular law and not to unchanging truth. The Constitution has become a mere speed bump on our way to a more pure secularism that was initiated by the Framers. With enough legal gymnastics, its seems almost anything can be found to be Constitutional. The Kennedys, the Pelosis, the Obamas, are working along the boundaries of Constitutional limits — boundaries that have been expanding relentlessly since 1789. Why has that happened, and did the Framers reject the very thing that could have mitigated that problem? Atheistic State Secularism is written in our Founding DNA — a DNA whose parentage is Enlightened Protestantism. As we see almost every “inalienable right” micro-regulated beyond recognition, and liberty after liberty slowly eroded — all within the confines of the Constitution — one is obligated to find out where and why things went wrong (while laying blame not on persons but rather on ideas).

      • BenjaminLatrobe

        The Constitution was written to protect the rest of us from people like you.

        • HigherCalling

          I agree, though I would say that the Constitution was written to separate and neutralize people like me (i.e. faithful Catholics) from having influence on the relentless advance of Godless secularism. The question is whether religion can be separated from politics — can God be separated from anything, (especially liberty), without those things ending in falsehood? You don’t need Constitutional protection from people like me. We want liberty, real liberty, for everyone, more than you do.

          • JessicaSideways

            Well, how far do you want to take it because liberty has to be reined in for a functioning society.

            For example, your liberty to own a gun ends when you point it at another person. Your liberty to the quiet enjoyment of your property ends when you threaten the quiet enjoyment of other people’s property by starting a meth lab.

            You advocate for discrimination, which impedes upon other people’s liberties.

      • JessicaSideways

        Oh, of course it has and this instance is proof of that. You’re free to have your religious beliefs, you just aren’t free to hurt people in the name of those beliefs. You aren’t free to oppress people using those beliefs. In other words, your freedom to swing your fists around wildly ends where my nose begins.

    • BenjaminLatrobe

      SORRY – Hatred is Hatred and it is not excused by “Religious Liberty”.

    • Jerry Reiter

      The Founding Fathers owned slaves, allowed only white male landowners to vote, did not allow women to vote or own property in their own names, but they distrusted organized religion. Many of their families had to flee from Europe due to religious persecution. The persecutors would have loved you. The Founding Fathers not so much.

    • IvanRider

      “The rights of the Christian and Jew, and those two alone, have been infringed upon, to support the sexual degenerate’s special privilege, unwarranted by anything, to force the Christian and Jew into celebration and even participation in their wicked deed – on pain of marginalization from society for non-compliance.”

      THAT is the most accurate way to word it.

    • Jude1966

      I think there’s a false dichotomy here. People seem to think that it boils down to “Religious Rights vs. Gay Rights”. Not so. Basic property rights are being violated. The owners of the cake shops et al have the right to do what they like with their property (include and exclude anyone they want)…even if it is mean or irrational.

      Offended? So what? It is a crime and sin that people’s “feelings” are now trumping property rights – the very base of our civilization.

  • Tradmeister

    This is terrible. We should prayer long and hard for these businesses in particular and regarding this subject in general.

  • Gabriella

    Don’t we, as citizens of democratic countries, have the right to uphold and protect our conscience? We do! When the gays have the right to do what they do, when they have the right to persecute those who disagree with them, then we have the right to express our disgust and opposition to it and protect our way of life, don’t we? Or, do we? Does the government have the legislative power to override my conscience? It seems that way but it stands in the direct opposition to what they claim, freedom for all and in God we trust – or do we?
    It is a high time we elect decent people into the White House! I am, personally, ashamed of Obama, his tactics, his deceitful mannerism. American people deserve better, much better – their freedom cost lives of thousands.Why then a couple of perverts has been given power to persecute those who disagree with them????????????????????????

    • Tradmeister

      Actually, Gabriella, no you don’t. We do not inhabit an open pluralist culture, as no such thing could ever truly exist in any sound manner for any meaningful length of time.

      We live in a secular liberal nation whose reigning ideology increasingly calls for the legitimization of sodomy. Therefore, you retain no legal right to oppose it any more than a racial segregationist would have the right to oppose the Civil Rights Act, or a Mormon polygamist would have the right to oppose the Reynolds decision.

      And just who, exactly, would you propose electing? Even Antonin Scalia supports states having the right to legalize homosexual unions. And Paul Ryan favors homosexual couples being able to adopt children.

      Once faithful Catholics come to truly understand this, perhaps we can return to the fullness of our faith instead of embarrassingly paying homage to some mythical public square.

      • tom

        We ought to at least occupy the public square. We’ve been banned from it. It now says, “NO Christians Allowed” and “Atheists ONLY”.

        it’s our own laziness that has brought us to this miserable end.

        We even let the Boy Scouts down. Pathetic!

    • TheodoreSeeber

      We haven’t lived in a democratic country for at least 50 years now.

      • tom

        It is an oligarchy of “ruling elites”. Long live the King, even if he’s a Queen!

        • theorist

          History is a long parade of ruling elites (if 51% can control society then 51% of the 51% can control society) but you have your pick between honest elitists (kings/dictators) or dishonest elitists (“representatives”, congressmen). No one is more enslaved than he who believes he is free.

      • Adam__Baum

        Longer. The state is fueled by money and the 16th amendment is its 20 pump stand.

      • Art Deco

        I would say it went down in stages.

        1. 1916: the foundation of federal subvention of state governments for discrete purposes.
        2. 1933: the origin of ‘co-operative federalism’ and the extension of 1.
        3. 1937: the abandonment of judicial review in deference to the projects of the Democratic party.
        4. 1941: the thorough erasure of the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce.
        5. 1958: arrogation by the judiciary of supremacy in matters of ‘interpretation’
        6. 1963 et seq.: strict equipopulousness mandated; gerrymandering a requirement.
        7. 1965: the advent of ‘creative federalism’. State and local government now bound and gagged with financial ties and duct tape.
        8. 1968: the advent of federal-judge-as-school board. Nice work in Boston.
        9. 1971: the advent of judicial and administrative imposition of racial preference schemes contra legislative history; effective prohibition of occupational testing in private employment.
        10. 1973: federal judiciary, without penalty, asserts a franchise to invalidate any law it cares to. Addendum, Lawrence v. Texas (2003): precedents schmecedents.
        11. 1986 et seq.: Amnesty and the immigration surge. The Regime effects to elect a new people.
        12. 1996: Romer v. Evans: the Regime’s preferred clients must not be inconvenienced.
        13. 2013: DOMA rulings &c. You just live here, peasants.

  • phranthie

    Could a pâtissier legally refuse to make a phallus-shaped cake requested by a religious group focused on such an object for ceremonial occasions? Or . . ? Just wondering.

  • Ruth Rocker

    I remember signs in stores reading “We retain the right to refuse service to anyone” or something along those lines. There are still signs in some restaurants that say “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.” Doesn’t that discriminate against the beach crowd?

    Isn’t there room for everyone? Why do the members of the homomafia HAVE to force companies who correctly view their behavior as sinful to do business with them? Seems like the right time for the homomafia to start their own businesses to cater to themselves.

    Of course, these are silly thoughts. The only way they can feel good about themselves is to beat everyone into submission. There can be no joy in Sodom as long as there are people who don’t go along with the charade. It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes in a different form.

    I would truly love to see what happens when an anti-fake-marriage seminar wants to book their convention at a homomafia establishment. I doubt the court would see the fact they were turned away as discrimination!

    • Tim

      I have NEVER heard of, for example, KKK members in town for a rally being denied hotel rooms by hotel owners, the vast majority of whom are normal people who find the Klan and what it stands for morally abhorrent.

      • Bob

        But if the hotel owner did deny a room for the KKK member in town for a rally, the hotel owner would be morally justified.

        • Tim

          By what principle? Society would not work if public accommodations could distinguish between people they liked and people they didn’t when it comes to generic goods or services available to the public at large. The way our society (any society, really) works, private citizens don’t get to judge people and, as it were, attempt to strong-arm them by withholding or denying otherwise neutral goods or services, nor is it any of a business’s “business” HOW something is used once it leaves the store, or WHY someone is seeking an in-itself neutral service (like lodging).

          • Art Deco

            Society would not work if public accommodations could distinguish
            between people they liked and people they didn’t when it comes to
            generic goods or services available to the public at large.

            Society would work just fine, Tim. The only occasions where you would have a dilemma would be those in which there was a functional monopoly of some crucial service. You see that with water provision, electricity generation, and retail trade in remote locations (in food, lodgings, and fuel). You might also see that with certain rarefied services, such as state medical schools.

          • thisoldspouse

            Society would work EXPONENTIALLY BETTER if we could exercise moral judgments freely, as we used to. Far fewer onerous laws were necessary when there was an unwritten moral framework in place by people exercising discretion in how they treated behavior universally understood as destructive and immoral. And I’m not talking about assaulting or otherwise attacking people of poor moral positions, just simply the right to avoid associations with them.

            • Tim

              When you open business to the public (as opposed to a private club) you lose the right to not associate with people for various extraneous reasons because your customer is “the public” and that includes even those you find unsavory. The klansman would easily win his case if you tried to deny him a room.

              • Art Deco

                No, you do not lose the right. The positive law refuses to recognize your right.

                This whole business where you have dykes and appellate judges harassing photogrphers minding their own business is a reductio ad absurdam. It acts to discredit these laws. Also the notion that any and all commerical service provider are ‘public accommodations’ does not respect even the positive law. Quit it.

              • Valentin

                Why do you lose the right it is not the publics hotel, flower shop, butcher shop, or restaurant it is the owners property he has discretion over his private property whether some government thug or gay pervert likes it or not.

            • Paul McGuire

              Yes because it was so wonderful back in the day when anyone who violated the public morals were shunned from society for good. When the adulterer was attacked by the town like in the film “Ryan’s Daughter”. It is precisely because gay men no longer worry about this sort of public stigmatization that we are able to have this conversation in the first place. Were things really better when gay men had to meet in bathhouses because nobody was out enough to meet anyone else in a public setting?

              • Adam__Baum

                No wonder you are so detached from reality, you think movies are a depiction of reality.

              • Art Deco

                Things were better when people had ample quantities of both guilt and shame, and had a well developed sensibilities which inhibited them from sodomizing each other. Loss of a vigorous capacity for disgust is not ‘progress’. Loss of a vigorous sense that sexual expression in bounded by family life is not progress either. You see the social statistics on divorce and bastardy and you see the world we live in. Oh, but Larry Kramer gets to shoot his mouth off, so its all good.

              • Valentin

                Does it that much conversation to realize that sticking your genitals in someones butt is messed up?

          • Bob

            If I own a hotel, and a guy walks in with a white hood over his head, I’m not giving him a room because IT’S MY HOTEL!

          • Pay

            It is a little something called right reason, conscience, and the moral law. The false principle that imposes unjust laws on everyone to enforce a deviant ideology is absolute tyranny.

          • theorist

            “Society would not work if public accommodations could distinguish
            between people they liked and people they didn’t when it comes to
            generic goods or services available to the public at large”

            Then why are there prohibitions at all? Historically, states have denied things to a set of the public that are available to another set of the public and they did not collapse for doing so. One might even define the matter of society as the organized and orderly dispossession of one group by another group.

      • Adam__Baum

        Because the Klan had a different approach, they wanted to remain open as a group, but hidden as individuals in the pursuit of their nefarious agenda.

      • Art Deco

        I was living in the Baltimore-Washington corridor in 1982 when one of the winglets of the Ku Klux Klan planned a march in Washington. The announcement triggered a counter march which decayed into a riot. There were 5,000 counter-demonstrators breaking windows and menacing people. There were 37 Klansmen who were arrested, transported away in a police bus, and not permitted to demonstrate.

  • publiusnj

    Given the state of the law, I think this is a losing proposition because the bake shop is likely to be deemed a public accommodation. The way around any claim of discrimination is to offer a basic “cake for any celebration of a coupling recognized as a ‘marriage’ by the State” as a public accommodation. If the contracting couple wants creativity on the part of the baker, though, the baker could refuse to engage in such creativity to the extent that would infringe his/her free expression rights.

    • tom

      Under today’s dictatorship by judge, the complaining couple will own the bake shop in a fortnight and the baker will be working in a prison kitchen.

    • Tim

      Correct, publiusnj, that’s how I see it. Demanding any artistic creativity on the part of the baker that could be seen as endorsing gay marriage cannot be required, but there is absolutely NO justification for refusing to sell a gay couple a “blank” wedding-style cake. That amounts to refusing to do business with someone just because they disagree.

      The fact is, anyone can go into a shop and buy a cake. It doesn’t have to be for a wedding at all. Maybe I want to buy a wedding-style cake for a photo-shoot, a skit, a prop in a movie, etc. There is no justification in public accommodations for demanding to know how someone is going to use a product offered for public sale, or denying service if you find out it is something controversial. For all you know, they’re lying or joking or something.

      Otherwise, it is a hugely slippery slope. Could a store refuse to sell an underaged girl plastic cups because they suspected she was going to use them to serve alcohol to minors at a party? Even if they overheard her saying it? I don’t think so. That’s not how public accommodations work. If you offer something morally neutral for sale, you have to basically pretend you didn’t hear if you find out it might be used in an immoral way or context. The sale of a morally neutral thing remains morally neutral in such circumstances, and there is no morally relevant “cooperation” here.

      So acts of artistic creativity or expression (decorating the cake in a specifically gay way, for example, or, I’d argue, photography) cannot be coercively demanded. But one cannot refuse sale of morally neutral products at a public accommodation, things that are offered to the public generally without any prying into how they’ll be used. That simply wouldn’t work as a society.

      • Art Deco

        Tim, you are reduced to making silly jesuitical distinctions because you refuse to recognize freedom of association, freedom of contract, and property rights. Granting someone a cause of action is, ultimately, a conduit for attorneys to second-guess the ordinary discretion we exercise (whether there are carve-outs for religious expression or not).

        • Tim

          Well that’s not how it works in the post-civil rights era. Public accommodations by the very fact of opening themselves to the public, forfeit certain rights to not-associate based on the benefits they receive by being public and the effects this would have on commerce.

          Private individuals and private clubs still have all the rights you list. But if one does not want to play by the rules of public accommodation, one should open a private club and not benefit from public business.

          You’re essentially calling for a total rollback of the public accommodation provisions of the civil rights act. That’s very libertarian, but it’s not Catholic

          • Art Deco

            So what?

            I am not offering a primer on contemporary labor and commercial law. I am saying that aspects of that law are asinine and should be repealed.

            • Adam__Baum

              “The Law is an A**”
              (only today it wears a nice suit and is better paid)
              -Samuel Johnson

    • thisoldspouse

      So, does the designation of a “public accommodation” then make all business establishments the property of the state? Why not then churches? On what basis are churches NOT considered public accommodations?

      • Tim

        Churches don’t offer a good or service for a profit, for one.

        Second, establishments that have religion/philosophy/ideology as their core mission and raison d’etre have always been exempted due to the First Amendment.

        A church is not a “wedding destination” business. It preforms wedding ceremonies as part of its religious mission. This is totally different than a business which offers neutral generic products for sale to the public at large.

        • thisoldspouse

          Wrong. Religious freedom does not exist only as it is connected to a church body. You have bought into the pernicious false ideology of the “freedom of worship,” not “freedom of religion” as indicated by the Constitution.

        • Art Deco

          Churches don’t offer a good or service for a profit, for one.

          Tell that to Rev. Ike.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Well, in France, the Law of the 9th December 1905 did precisely that. It declared all religious edifices to be the property of the nation. After all, no individual could claim that his or her patrimonial interests had been infringed; such property was, in effect, ownerless.

        • Adam__Baum

          I’m sure that will be part of the foreign law that our xenophile “justices” will want to weave into U.S. law.

  • Elat

    It’s so high time to fight back more. Yesterday I read the WHO guidelines for European school children’s curriculum re: sex education. If you really want to be horrified, read it. I am from Europe, now living in the US, and I am just shocked!!! and the same forces writing that is at work here. The battle is not about them doing whatever they want, they do and have been doing it and that’s one thing; and these above stuff is terrible, BUT the real battle is for our kids and what they want to teach them.

    • tom

      If a million families…adhering to the Judeo-Christian ethic….peacefully walked down Broadway to protest this Leftist takeover, this would all stop on a dime. Our “elites” can’t believe how the sheeple accept every increment in their audacious and methodical deprivation of our fundamental beliefs. So, they push a little farther in pursuit of their dialectic. Most live cushy lives in a classroom, sitting on a bench or in political office…getting paid by us to destroy us.

      So, we’ve met the enemy and it is us for letting it happen.

      We need a monthly Marching Day to protest all of it….IF they’ll grant is a permit to assemble.

      • Crusader for Christ

        “If a million families…adhering to the Judeo-Christian
        ethic….peacefully walked down Broadway to protest this Leftist
        takeover, this would all stop on a dime.” If a million Catholic families peacefully walked down Broadway, absolutely no one would notice. Been to any March for Life activities lately? The Ministry of Truth always spikes stories that are not approved by Big Brother.
        On the other hand, if a million Knights of Columbus forceably took over a Federal Courthouse, put the “judges” on trial for violations of the natural law, then hung them, THEN you would get the Emperor’s attention.

        • slainte

          Catholics who participate in demonstrations like the March for Life have not yet learned how to use social media effectively to communicate their message to the world and then to use that message to build a global consensus.
          Why is it necessary for us to wait for the media to report on acitivities like the March for LIfe? Dependence on traditional media for broadcasting is obsolete. The age of social technology makes possible individual and group ability to control a message and to disseminate that message far and wide. More the reason why we must work with youth to get this job done.
          Remember how “Protest Wall Street” and the “99 percent” movement progressed…it was through social media not the 5 oclock news.

    • AuthenticBioethics

      Reason #1 for homeschooling. I know it’s hard, I know it means being a 1 income family. But this article is full of people who have lost their livelihoods – and you are right, the battle is primarily for the kids. Keep your kids as far from a government schools as possible!

      • Nerd

        Simply homeschooling your kids is not the answer. Retreat from the problems is not the answer. This has to be faced head on, with the school board, with the state governments, and with your own circle. Homeschooling might protect your children, but it doesn’t help anyone else.

        • Tony

          It’s a start. You don’t send your kids into a sewer, even if you are going to try your hardest to clean up that sewer. The public schools are both toxic and inept.

          • Chip70

            It might help if republicans stopped defunding the schools.

            • tom

              Huh?

            • Tony

              1. They haven’t defunded anything. 2. Money has nothing to do with it. Set aside the schools burdened with broken families. The schools in New Haven and Cambridge and Princeton are still toxic and corrupt. I teach students coming from “good” public schools, and those schools still neglect almost everything we want schools to teach — they are moral sinkholes, and for all that, they still do not manage to teach grammar, English literature, history, geography …

            • Adam__Baum

              That’s funny.

        • R. K. Ich

          As a father my job is to provide and protect. Sending my kids to a public school does neither of those things for them. The culture today is diametrically opposed to a catholic worldview. I will not let them be trained by the purveyors of a blinded philosophy.

      • tom

        support your local Catholic school. send them a couple hundred to have a spelling bee with the winners each getting $50. Or create a scholarship fund to give a child $100/yr. to offset the tuition. Lots of little steps by many people.

    • Tim

      So, just so I get this straight…how long are you planning to keep your kids ignorant of actual things that do in fact go on in the world? And of alternate ideologies? And how exactly do you plan to accomplish it?

      • Bob

        I’ll tell my kids that sexual sin does exist, and that sexual sin is immoral and against God’s will.

      • Adam__Baum

        Yeah, those poor, ignorant home schooled kids, the ones that disproportionately win spelling and other “bees”, while your kids are enlightened about twerking and other “actual things” that go on in the world.
        You really don’t need to go to a concentration camp to know it’s bad.

        • tom

          Mandatory drug testing for p.s. teachers would be a good start.

          Half of them are looped every weekend.

          • Adam__Baum

            Or molesting the kids. There’s kind of an epidemic of teachers “involved” with kids-but you won’t hear about it. Of course there’s also a bit of a controversy now about a teacher who posed for what is euphemistically called “a men’s magazine”.

        • NotaFuckingMoron

          lol fucking moron

          There is literally nothing wrong with “twerking”

          At all.

          • Valentin

            Your probably also okay with girls dressing like whores and walking in the middle of the inner city after taking extecy pills.

          • Adam__Baum

            But there is something wrong with you.

      • R. K. Ich

        Tim, here’s an idea: I’ll let my children know about the sins of the Holocaust and the perfusion of sodomite culture in our land when they’re old enough to process the gravity of such things, rather than assaulting their moral imagination at such a tender age. Then, when they have the tools of learning firmly in their hands of faith, I will then expose them to the contrary (alternate is so damned PC, no?) God-hating ideologies and why they fail miserably to explain anything meaningful about the world.

        Curious, what does your programme look like?

        • Adam__Baum

          R.K., time to complete the journey you mentioned the the other day. We need all good hands on deck for the approaching tempest, as so many are shivering below deck or jumping into the open sea.

          • R. K. Ich

            All in good time. I am unfortunately a relic of an Anglo-Catholic seriously inquiring into the prospect of joining communion with Rome, but sometimes wonder if I wouldn’t be chased out straight away! But I do take seriously Her antiquity and place of honor, so I believe it’s more a matter of when than if. In the meantime I stand with the faithful Catholics.

            • pjd

              You would be welcomed with open arms, dear brother-in-Christ.

            • Adam__Baum

              Perhaps the Anglican Ordinariate?

        • Youreallretarded

          sodomite culture

          Yeah the story of sodom and gomorah, Lot was such a pillar of morality wasn’t he?

          Sending out his 2 virgin daughters to be violently raped by strangers to apease his 2 strange guests. So Righteous! That is a story we can all learn from!

          Obviously societies that abandon god, like Norway, the safest country on earth, are hellholes that cannot be saved. Even in america, the 3 safest least violent states NH, VT, and ME, are also the 3 least religious (VT and NH have a MAJORITY population that claims religion has no part of their life) are so indescribably sinister that there is nothing but darkness there. If only everywhere could look like the two most religious states, Mississippi and Alabama, which also happen to be the two most violent.

          What We need to do is be more like Lot. We should all send our daughters to be continuously raped in a mob since its what god considers righteous.

          • Valentin

            I am pretty damn sure that New York City, Chicago, Detroit, LA, Newark NJ, Camden, St. Paul Minnesota, and North Minneapolis are more dangerous than Mobile. What do you mean by religion though? Because as far as I can tell everyone is tied to some base on which they act even if that base is selfishness or a mob mentality.

          • R. K. Ich

            Dear Mr. Retarded,

            I was happy to find your most astute reply squarely aimed at my insufferable acrimony. Clearly I transgressed my competency to adjudge any societal ills, and for this I heartily thank you for your gentle correction. After all, my benighted — yes, dimwitted! — outlook is confessedly due to an uncritical esteem for dusty old Hebrew legends. Innumerable thanks is owed to your penetrating analysis. Why, it’s clear as the noon sun that your remarks possess more sagacity, more profundity, indeed more lucidity than the whole lot of those stupid, barbaric Jewish tales combined: Post Tenebras Lux!

            Yet, the impish Medievalist in me cannot but help detect not a little insincerity in your critique of the Old Religion, which is to me more an invitation to sport and sparring than any real sort of warring. I beg you, good sir, to indulge me a moment to see if my initial impression of your wit is spot on, or perhaps I’ve fallen again for so much rot (surely you must know we Throne and Altar types are unfortunate holdovers from the Dark Ages, and so believe the most damnable things.)

            First of all, your rejoinder to my objection to the elevation of sodomite culture to chic status could be summarized in this way: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah had no moral hero since the angelic powers aided an obviously evil man. But did Lot in fact act out of an evil heart or out of fear? You as a modern man may not get the nature of the offer of his daughters to those wicked men prepared for judgment; but you as a modern ought to understand the inherent perversity of a orgasm-hungry culture that will kill in the name of obtaining momentary pleasure, as evidenced by the ubiquitous temples to Moloch under the sanitized name of “Planned Parenthood”. So forgive me if I take your criticisms of Lot as more jest than rebuke. When your righteous outcry against the evils of our time reaches that of righteous Lot’s, then I might begin to find your objection believable.

            Secondly, your other sophomoric argument says, in effect, that less religion equals more virtue in a people. You assume natural law needs religion in order to prod the consciences of men. But you are sorely mistaken and confuse the meaning of revealed religion, namely the Christian religion. Christianity does not make men recognize what is good and bad, it reminds men that judgment will either fall on their heads for their sins, or else they must find refuge in the Son of God and be saved. But that aside, your peaceful Norway is still slaughtering innocent human babies by the tens of thousands per year. That men are not brandishing guns to satisfy their bloodthirsty lust is no argument for the absence of bloodthirstiness or lust. Socially speaking, the once great Christian Norway has emasculated herself by neutralizing the influence of religion all the while ravaging their young in the abortuaries.

            So in retrospect, Mr. Retard, I think I will recant my initial impression that your social commentary was possessed of a rare genius. On the contrary, it seems your public education has served you more poorly than average. If I do not pity you then I might be tempted to think you are morally culpable for your otherwise clumsy and dull-headed words.

          • Adam__Baum

            “We should all send our daughters to be continuously raped in a mob”

            We do, it’s called “college”, “nightclubs” and of course “hooking up”. But it’s ok for them to be playthings, as long as they use “protection”.

      • Elat

        Tim, they’re starting their indoctrination, not teaching, at age 4. Process that. They have an agenda which is to normalize every perversion under the sun plus over-sexualize even kids. As if TV and the media isn’t doing enough of that already. The irony is that they say they want to fight the sharp rise of HIV and other Std’s (let’s not forget skyhigh abortion nrs too). So by making sure they think a lot about sex from age 4, and being taught that there are no boundaries, nothing that is right or wrong, and lies such as biological gender isn’t necessarily your correct gender, you can “choose” it, etc etc etc they will decrease these problems? you know I would laugh at the insanity if it wasn’t because they are literally destroying kids. This is nothing short of diabolical.

        • Valentin

          Not to mention that at age 4 they also stunt their ability to read with doctor Seuss where as when it was not mandatory to go to school the requirement was that the student must be able to read the Bible to get into school and at that point the literacy rate in America was way higher than it is now. PS. Any young boy going to a public school (or plenty of private schools at that) will feel hell keeping him from exploring, banging hammers and wrestling.

      • Art Deco

        You know, Tim, when my mother and father were in secondary school (1940-48), there was no such thing as “sex education”. My parents had four kids. About 97% of the children my father’s contemporaries sired were born withing wedlock and most of the remainder were adopted out. Funny how that worked.

        • Adam__Baum

          No sex education and a great deal more authentic love.

  • poetcomic1

    The lesbian couple who shut down Melissa’s had been coming there for years and were intimately friendly with the owner. One of them gave an interview going on and on about her ‘hurt’ when the owner gently explained she could not be involved in their ‘wedding’. Betrayal and ‘drama’ and narcissism seem to be well represented in the ranks of the ‘monotonous’.

    • tom

      They’re looking for deep pocket$, too.

  • tom

    The common thread in these egregious decisions is that the judges are APPOINTED, not elected. Most are anti-Christian Trotskyites bent on completing the communist revolution started by their great uncles a century ago in Russia.

    If a judge had to explain her inane decisions to the voters every 10 years, she’d stop this dictatorship from the bench that’s destroying Western Civilization here and abroad. the so-called “hate crime” legislation is an adjunct to the tools at hand to destroy the whole West.

    Ironically, Russia’s nationalism prevents this kind of takeover, now. They learned from their communist rule, I guess. The upcoming Olympics there will be fun.

    Remember: Buy Barilla pasta…the latest victim of this PC madness.

  • Art Deco

    Persecution is a florid term. “Harrassment” will do.

    Two things you can see in these disputes:

    1. “Anti-discrimination” law puts you on a treadmill. This has been true with regard to each client group extended a cause of action as a consequence of other people’s exercise of discretion in the market. How fast the hamster has to run is a function of the quality and quanta of pathology in the clientele in question. The homosexual population is damaged goods with quite a mass of aggression against the larger society. You are never going to get ahead of it.

    2. There is an exchange of ego satisfactions between the gay lobby and a certain sort of bourgeois. That sort is a cultural antagonist to most other sectors of society, most particularly those sectors not composed of clientele.

    There is not one aspect of the behavior of the legal profession or the lobbies involved that is salutary.

  • Bob

    Someone, please, explain to me:

    How is someone’s sexually disordered/perverted desires and tendencies towards sodomy make them part of a “protected group” that can be discriminated against?

    This is nuts. Nuts, nuts, nuts.

    • thisoldspouse

      It’s going to get a lot worse. Pedophiles and polygamists are salivating in the wings.

      • Art Deco

        I will quote the disreputable Mr. Sailer: it’s a popularity contest. Principle has nothing to do with it. Mormon polygamists are unpopular so no one is going to do anything for them. Ditto generic pedophiles. The gay lobby does not give a rip about Humbert Humbert.

        The next frontier is not the legitimation of pedophilia, but rather pederasty. Expect ‘edgy’ TV drama about the sexual initiation of adolescent males. In the courts, expect cases like Kaitlyn Hunt’s, but with carefully selected straw plaintiffs drawn from intact professional class families, not skeezy characters like Steven Hunt and Kelley Smith.

      • Crusader for Christ

        “Pedophiles and polygamists are salivating in the wings.” But even after it’s legalized, society will be shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, when Catholic priests do this! You heard it here first….

  • Thomas

    What needs to be clearly articulated is why people with same-sex attractions are a different case. The argument presented on this site is that people with same-sex attractions (I refused to label individuals as “gay” or “lesbian.” Let’s call it like it is–same sex attraction) have a particular attribute that limits their capacity to pursue a particular service.

    It seems as if the alternative perspective is more culturally prevalent: same-sex attraction is just another attribute such as sex, gender and race (I’m not talking about the marriage debate here).

    This is where both “sides” miss each other–and why dialog stalls. Either same-sex attraction is an attribute that precludes one’s choices to exercise purchasing power or not.
    What is needed is a clear articulation of that attribute and specifically why that attribute precludes an individual from pursuing a particular service.

    • Steve Frank

      No one is suggesting that anyone be deprived of “purchasing power”. But nobody has a “right” to someone else’s personal labor. (Labor associated with government services is a different matter of course). If gay couples can’t purchase services from a private business owner who has conscience issues, they can go find another provider that will do business with them. Given how “chic” it is to be gay now it shouldn’t be too hard to find another provider who would be more than willing to offer their services to them. Forcing people by the point of a gun to act against conscience is itself unconscionable.

    • tamsin

      The attribute is fertility.

      Yes, the current culture treats sexual attraction like eye color: why would anybody refuse to bake a cake for a person with green eyes? They were “born that way”. (Lady Gaga played her part in this and now she is finished.)

      But individuals are not fertile until they are in relationship with one other individual of the opposite sex.

      Catholic culture understands that the word “marriage” should be reserved for the creation of a brand-new entity that takes care of a “baby”. So far, only two people of opposite sex can make a baby to take care of. This single entity (from two individuals expressed as: they become one flesh) has the attribute of fertility.

      Dialogue stalls because gays are avoiding talking about the fact that they are avoiding girls. Because girls are… icky, I guess. And nowadays gays can purchase a “gayby”.

      And so we come full circle to the spectacle of a Supreme Court ruling that justifies gay marriage in part because gays have gaybies… while the gay lobby lobbies for gay marriage in the several States because infertile heterosexual couples have always been allowed to get married. So, gay lobby: does fertility matter? Do babies matter?

      • Paul McGuire

        Sure fertility and babies matter, to straight couples. One can recognize that marriage between a man and a woman exists for the purposes of procreation while still supporting the idea that two gay men should be able to get married. The two are not mutually exclusive. Two men getting married does not prevent a man and a woman who live down the street from getting married and having children together.

        My facebook feed is full of married couples (husband and wife) who are supportive of same-sex marriage for their gay friends but who also are marrying and having children. Their support for their gay friends does not diminish their biological urges to raise children together.

        One key attribute of marriage is procreation but this does not mean that all of the other benefits of marriage disappear when procreation is removed from the equation. Many straight couples get married first out of love or other reasons, perhaps even not really wanting children at that time. Some of those couples may later decide they also want to have children.

        The church may suggest that straight couples who marry with no intention of ever having children are somehow not really getting married but the state does not deny a straight couple the right to marry because they decided not to have children.

        • Art Deco

          We are not collectively obligated to forget what marriage is and what it signifies. Associations between two men do not merit legal recognition or the promotion of cultural confusion, whether or not those two men engage in disgusting sexual practices.

        • thisoldspouse

          The state does not grant the right to marriage because two people “love” each other, either, and yet, the homosexual lobby acts as if it does.

          If love is the sole criteria, as the Gaystapo chants incessantly, then Pandora’s box is wide open to unleash the unconscionable upon society. And we can now expect it, since no definition is now safe.

        • Pay

          You have reconstructed marriage into some other entity. It is no longer marriage but some hedonistic instrument.

          • Paul McGuire

            I don’t know that the majority of same-sex couples who have been together for more than 20 years would consider it a hedonistic instrument. They enter into the same lifelong commitments to each other that straight couples do. Does a straight marriage become invalid if a couple decides never to have children because perhaps the wife is a liberal feminist who believes that the world is too overpopulated as it is?

            • Art Deco

              They enter into the same lifelong commitments to each other that straight couples do.

              No, they con their lawyers into thinking that. Congrats, sucker.

            • guest

              Why on earth compare unequal items? There is no comparison between two men pretending to be married and a heterosexual couple not wanting kids.

              • Valentin

                I would call them both Gay they are both cold chilling and not allowing life into the world.

            • Valentin

              Why do go on about what same-sex couples think? They are wrong.

        • Valentin

          Two gay guys jacking off is unreasonable, irrational, and ends with cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, aids, and a few more tailbones filling the cracks in the road to hell. “Gay marriage” is not marriage it is a waste of time effort and serves no moral good.

      • Crusader for Christ

        “Do babies matter?” Nope. It’s all about THE TAX DEDUCTION! If marital status/head of household status was removed from the 1040, and everybody filed their taxes individually regardless of who/what was in the house, gays would flee legal marriage like their pants were on fire.
        Why? Can you say “divorce decree?”

      • Valentin

        Some gay people annoy the hell out of me because they can’t stand the beauty of a girl and her gentle touch.

    • AuthenticBioethics

      Attraction and action are different things. A person with same-sex attraction could go in to buy a birthday cake, and the attraction is meaningless with respect to the action. The attraction does not have to be acted upon, just as people with opposite-sex attraction do not act on all their attractions either, and those with same-sex attraction pick and choose their partners. Getting married is an action, which no one else is under any obligation to endorse. It is that action that is at question here, not the attribute. Would the bakery have sold a wedding cake to a lesbian for the lesbian’s sister’s wedding to a man? The purported victim at Melissa’s (according to another commenter) is a long-time customer. Therefore, It is not the attraction that is the decisive attribute, but the action that the customer wants the baker to endorse, and the customer retaliated – retaliated quite dramatically – for the baker’s refusal to endorse it.

      • Paul McGuire

        Except this distinction doesn’t make sense to anyone who is not religious. No matter how many times it is repeated, it doesn’t become any more rational to suggest that gay men and lesbian women should just not act on their attractions. Courts have rejected this distinction because it doesn’t make any sense. To most of society, nothing is more inherently linked to one’s sexual orientation than their expression of love towards someone.

        • Art Deco

          it doesn’t become any more rational to suggest that gay men and lesbian women should just not act on their attractions.

          I will ignore all the dead bodies and the complicated drug regimens.

        • Steve Frank

          “nothing is more inherently linked to one’s sexual orientation than their expression of love towards someone”

          Last time I heard this I think it was from an article that was quoting something off the NAMBLA website.

        • Pay

          Like a father and son? All it takes is “luv” to make a family, right?

          • Art Deco

            Don’t give them any ideas. There was a George Will column around about 1979 where he critiqued an article that had appeared in a professional journal in some discipline adjacent to the mental health trade. The article was called “Breaking the Last Taboo” and was written (IIRC) by someone named Ramey. The article in question actually had the phrase “Consent openly allowed sophisticated lifestyles which included sexual sharing…”. Will’s response: “Ah, sophisticated sharing. Surely the best sort. No advocacy here, of course…”

            One interesting detour the culture took after 1978 was to evade a destination you could ascertain up ahead: the legitimation of adult-child sex. There was a complete reversal and a period of madcap paranoia about the sexual violation of the young (see Gerald Amerault). That should tell us that babble about ‘inevitability’ from basket cases like Rod Dreher is just that. (That should also suggest to us that the gay lobby will get back on task sooner or later).

        • Valentin

          Well most of “society” (if that is the right word) does not know true love and just because someone thinks they are attracted to something that does not make it write.

  • cestusdei

    No one is less tolerant then a homosexual activist. Ask them if they believe that a black baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Klan rally featuring a lynching in icing. See how fast they change their tune.

  • Mark K.

    The U.S. and Western Civilization is running headlong into a large crash and burn. Within our current Federal government, we can no longer govern ourselves. The Senate has not passed a budget in five years, the government is shut down because a few stalwarts are holding out hoping to change the insanity of Washington, but their cause is doomed. The woman selected to head the Federal Reserve was not the first choice, but rather she took it when others refused the position. They know things are bad and cannot be saved. The government shutdown will end and we’ll continue with business as usual in which we borrow 40% of every Federal dollar spent. Sorry, but your children have no happy future.

    My advice is buy garden seed next spring (mail order catalogs), and relearn how to grow your own food. Buy a gun to fend off those who will come to steal your food, your clothes, and anything else of value they can run off with. Buy a big dog to alarm the family when intruders come in the dark of night. You won’t be able to see these pagans approach because they have all tattooed themselves to look like aliens (notice many of the professional athletes look this way today). Smash your children’s ipods etc. and threaten them with bodily harm if they even so much as think about getting a tattoo. Hoard rice, flower and canned vegetables now, they all have very long shelf life, put them in large plastic container bins. There will be no warning before the crash, the government will lie and say all is fine up to the very end. Good luck to all, we have fought the good fight, but have lost to the barbarians who live among us.

    • Valentin

      I agree with you for the most part but I must ask what prompted your comment?

  • Michael T. Hiller

    Such balance, such awareness of our own sins.

  • AuthenticBioethics

    Christians of every age ought to live like they were in the “end times.” But boy, when I read this sort of news, Rev 13:17 comes to mind, and I get chills. “And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

  • Schlomo

    When are you folks going to start denying services to Jews in the name of your religion?Oh sorry, you guys already did that… I guess you’ll never learn.

    • Carl

      What are you talking about?

      • Adam__Baum

        He’d have to know what he’s talking about to tell you, Carl.

        Of course, I’m wondering who “you guys” are.

    • Valentin

      It’s fine for a Catholic to give a Rabinnic Jew living essentials so that he may one day convert but it is not ok for a Catholic to support something contrary to Christ.

  • yodacat

    Christ accepted everyone-especially sinners. Tax collecters, “prostitutes” or women of questionable repute. He had mercy and forgiveness for everyone.

    Read Siser Faustina’s Diary. Pay attention to what Pope Francis, the leader of the Universal Church says: “Who am I to Judge?” Then of course there is “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

    Gays and Lesbians are people, just like the rest of us. Tbney are sinners in other ways as are we all.

    “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Sounds as if these business owners cast the stone, and it was cast back.

    • Bob

      Read the Catechism #1868 on the Catholic teaching on cooperating with someone’s sins.

      • yodacat

        The Divine Mercy of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, trumps all. Kindness and forgiveness and non-judgementalism are acts of mercy.
        Read Saint Faustina’s Diary. Follow the precepts of Blessed Mother Teresa. Then of course don’t forget St. Francis. He had a horror of lepers, then he saw the light and went out and hugged and kissed one. You doin;t have to go find a gay person and hug and kiss them. At least not literally.
        But do not judge. It is not our place to judge. It is Gods place to do so, and his alone. Read your Bible. Hear the successor of St Peter.

        • Bob

          Read my comment above referring to the Catechism and cooperating with sin. Gay marriage/sodomy is a sin that “cries to heaven.” A Christian/Catholic baker that makes a wedding cake for a gay wedding is giving tacit approval to that wedding being licit (or moral, if you will) and therefore said Christian/Catholic is approving of their sin, and therefore cooperating in it.

          Faustina’s diary is about God’s infinitesimal mercy for a repentant sinner that seeks that mercy. But no where does the saint say that living in unrepentant sin is “A-OK” with God. In fact, she writes how offended God is with man’s sins.

          • F106dart

            Bob….I hope you meant to say “…God’s infinite mercy…” ?

            Because the mercy we all need is a bit more than infinitesimal!

            • Bob

              Just corrected it…..thanks! Darn spell check……!

        • Pay

          The irony is you are judging right here.

        • Valentin

          I can only truly forgive someone if they are truly sorry a gay who celebrates acting gay is not sorry one bit and needs some fatherly love.

    • Bob

      From the Catechism, and how we sin by cooperating in the sins of others:

      1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

      – by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

      – by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

      – by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

      – by protecting evil-doers.

      • Tim

        Selling someone a cake is not direct participation in whatever event they plan on using that cake for once it leaves the store.

        Selling someone a cake is not praising the event at which that cake will be used as long as no message or symbol was required to be placed on top of it as an act of additional creativity on the part of the artist; if it is a “blank” or generic cake (even a “wedding-style” cake) such as is offered for sale to the general public…there is no praise, no expression or speech inherent in simply selling the cake.

        Some baker is under no particular obligation to hinder a random gay wedding, and no such obligation is introduced simply because someone intends to buy supplies for said wedding at his public store.

        Baking a cake isn’t protecting any evil-doer from justice.

        • Adam__Baum

          “Some baker is under no particular obligation to hinder a random gay wedding”
          Are you telling us that that the sine qua non of a “gay wedding” is a cake from a particular shop?

          • Tim

            No. I’m saying that a baker has no particular obligation to try to obstruct the gay wedding by withholding in-themselves neutral or generic products or services, the use of which is not his business once they leave the store. A baker is under no active obligation to do everything he can to stop or inconvenience a gay wedding. The omission of such obstruction is thus not moral cooperation in the sin.

            • Art Deco

              He’s not obstructing anything, Tim, unless you fancy he owns all the bakeries in town.

              • Tim

                He may or may not! We don’t know. There has to be a sort of “categorical imperative” analysis of things like this. You’re basically saying it works because only some want an exemption. But that doesn’t work because theoretically all might. Especially in a given area or region.

                • Art Deco

                  There has to be a sort of “categorical imperative” analysis of things like this.

                  Sez who?

                  • Tim

                    Basic prudence, justice, and pragmatism regarding legitimate state interests. There are regions where every baker in town would deny service. This isn’t merely hypothetical.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      All bow to Timmy’s golden calf, the state. People serve the state, not the other way around.

                    • Art Deco

                      Wrong order. The state is an instrument to deliver bon bon’s to Tim’s preferred mascot group, because they are Very Special People.

                    • Guest

                      Yes, extra special. They can violate nature and demand all accept it.

                    • guest

                      There is no justice in compelling others to violate their conscience.

                    • Art Deco

                      So what?

                      You do not settle in small towns if you want to make an exhibit of yourself and flout intensely held community norms. (As a practical matter, you’re wrong. I can give you the name of a level-2 sex offender who managed to go about his business and earn a living in spite of being on a public registry and in spite of hate campaigns against him orchestrated by the seedy prosecutor who put him away. Yes, the local bakeries sold to him).

                    • Tim

                      The burden just doesn’t work that way in our society. The burden is not on the individual to rearrange their life to accommodate the society. That’s backwards. “If you don’t like it live somewhere else” is an absurd idea, especially since you yourself reject it. A baker who refuses to sell to someone on account of after-the-fact uses he’s decided to make his business (when it’s not) is violating social norms. “Maybe he should move somewhere else”

                    • Art Deco

                      Tim, it works that way in any place there is something called a ‘society’. Any place that has particularity and some measure of social co-operations also has manners.

                      It’s rather rum that you have been arguing here that we all have to arrange our lives to accommodate pests in the legal profession (backed up with guns) and then turn around and argue that people’s voluntary aversion is now an illegitimate imposition.

                      There is a lesson in there about what you value and who you value.

                • Adam__Baum

                  It’s none of your business.

            • Adam__Baum

              Obstruction is blocking the entrance, you are no more obstructing a gay wedding by not participating than I am obstructing football by refusing to play.

              • Tim

                Ok. So then in what sense is a baker an accessory to sin? Under what criterion?

        • guest

          The issue is the individual conscience, not licit or illicit cooperation with evil.

        • Valentin

          “Baking a cake isn’t protecting any evil-doer from justice.” What are you talking about? A cake is used in celebration which is clearly for for the activity in some way.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Moral theologians have often regarded remote material cooperation in another’s sin as licit, where there is a proportionate grave cause.

        Thus, the celebrated moral theologian, Antonio Escobar y Mendoza (1589 –1669), in his Summula Casuum Conscientiae (1627) is of opinion that servants, who assist their master in seduction by “carrying letters and presents, opening doors and windows, helping their master to reach the window, holding the ladder which he is mounting,” may do so with a safe conscience, provided they do not internally consent to the sin, but direct their intention rather to keeping their employment, earning their wages or the like.

        • Tim

          And simply selling an item is a LOT more remote than carrying a letter.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Or holding a ladder!

        • slainte

          And a nurse who sets up a saline dispenser and hands it to an abortionist during a procedure may violate her conscience licitly if she is internally indifferent to the procedure that she and the abortionist are collectively engaged in, and her focus remains directed toward maintaining her employment with the abortuary?

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            But there the nurse’s emoluments are derived from the profits of the immoral activity, whereas the servant’s are not.

            • Slainte

              If the master’s source of income is from the business that engages in the immoral activity which is then used to pay the servant, your claim is a distinction without a difference.

              Some of the Nazis prosecuted at Nuremburg would have been grateful for the testimony of the ethicists who make arguments in favor of exonerating those who support “remote material cooperation”.

              We would do well to flee from evil, not search for reasons to justify participating in it by degree.

              • jar

                And that is exactly the point. It is not just about a moral calculus that may allow licit cooperation at times. It is about individual consciences and why they should not be violated regardless of legalists and their manuals.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                The servant in Escobar’s case is a domestic servant, whose master is engaged in seducing a lady. The master does not profit financially from doing so. The servant’s wages do not derive from the seduction.

                The servant’s position is not an enviable one, for as Escobar says, “if they refuse to perform all the errands in which they are employed, they lose their places ; and if they yield obedience, they have their scruples.”

              • John200

                Precisely. When you are thinking of ways to justify a sin, you are on the glide path to committing it.

    • ericpinola

      Heck from the bible it states to tell the person they are sinning, bring a friend and tell them, then bring the priest….then wash your hands of them…do NOT even pray for them, they have chosen MORTAL SIN. Peace to People of GOOD WILL.

    • Adam__Baum

      He also said, “go and sin no more”. He didn’t say go and continue.He also didn’t command the local baker to confect a cake for the alulterous woman. Since nobody is advocating a mob stoning, your analogy is a counterfeit.

      Understanding and empathy is not indifference and license. Directed to another (more common) human frailty would be as follows: “Bob, I know you are an alcoholic and you will always be tempted to drink, so I accept you as you are, I’m not going to encourage you to remain sober, because God made you an alcoholic and forgiveness means permission, so drink up buddy,

      The funny thing about trolls that descend upon us when ever is for all their prarie-dog alertness to anything regarding SSA/SSM that is said here, their arguments are as easily de-constructed as a cheap Happy Meal toy.

    • thisoldspouse

      Christ did NOT accept everyone, unless they were willing to meet his certain terms – non-negotiable terms.

      Apparently you have never read the Bible and are talking about a fictitious “Jesus.”

  • Schlomo

    How about the Jews? Should we deny service to them too? Isn’t not accepting Jesus one of the worst sins imaginable?

    • Bob

      The actual Hebraic male name is spelled “Shlomo” not “Schlomo”….but nice try though.

      • Art Deco

        His name is probably something like “Jason Galfand” and he has not seen the inside of a synagogue since his grandfather’s funeral.

  • Carl

    What should be added to this piece is the numerous times Christian symbols and activities are removed from public display and performances—for comparison.

    I’m not a lawyer but I do believe public accommodation laws do serve the greater public good. If you rent private property to the public you have to rent to all unless affiliated with a religious institution. And this would NOT exclude the Boy Scouts from public buildings as they are many times!

    As far as wedding cakes go, its one thing to sell a cake, and quite another to force someone to decorate one with homosexual marriage designs—that’s forcing someone to express support for that lifestyle. Why can’t they just sell a plain cake?

    Wedding Photographer, again, photography is a form of art and expression, no one should be forced to express something not of their own belief system.

    If I were a professional painter I would gladly paint anyone’s house or business, but I would refuse to paint homosexual images and propaganda.

    If I were an electrician I would gladly wire anyone’s house or business, but I would refuse to wire billboards with homosexual propaganda or businesses that advocate that lifestlye.

    There’s a big difference between accommodation and forced adherence to lifestyles not of one’s own.

    • Tim

      I think it depends what you mean by “wire a billboard.” You could not be forced to engage in any act of CREATIVITY or EXPRESSION supporting homosexualist propaganda, such as arranging lights to spell a certain message. Under public accommodation principles, you could not refuse to fix the wiring that runs the lights that merely shine on a billboard you disagree with, as such electrical work is not feasibly construable as an act of expression or creativity in favor of what the billboard says.

      • Carl

        As a private business, not a public utility, I can refuse any business I want to. In a right to work state my employer doesn’t have to say why they are firing me and in reverse I have the right to quit without any reason.

        The smart thing to do as a business owner is to state, “sorry I can’t accommodate your request, here are three referrals for your business”

        • Tim

          Incorrect. “At will” firing allows an employer to fire someone for a stupid reason or no reason whatsoever. But it is still forbidden to fire someone for an illegal reason (ie, based on certain protected legal classes like race, sex, age, etc).

          Likewise, even a privately owned business is not generally allowed to refuse service to someone on the basis of race, for example.

          Yes, if you wanted to and were “smart,” you’d just say “We’re all booked” or whatever. But if they can prove beyond a preponderance of doubt that you did it because of race (ie, if there is good reason to believe that), then they have grounds for action against you.

          This is how the whole concept of civil rights works…

          • Art Deco

            I understand, Tim, but the principle of labor law you make reference to is unjust, as is the principle of commercial law.

            • Tim

              Only according to libertarianism, Art Deco. Not according to Catholic Social Teaching.

              If the principle of public accommodation is admissible relative to race, it is admissible relative to all groups or distinctions.

              It’s not up to stores to nanny their customers. If you put certain services or goods “on the block” for sale to the whole forum, they are for sale to whomever bids highest, as it were. The ability to selectively exclude certain people from the “auction” at-will messes with the whole functioning of the market, with the very way prices are set, etc

              • Art Deco

                I am not invoking the social encyclicals because they are very difficult to operationalize. That said, I think you would have a hard time finding within them text which says you are compelled to rent hotel rooms at hourly rates to the gaystapo.

              • Carl

                If I make a widget, you can not force me to sell it to you, there is no public accommodation.

                If you open a bakery with public access anyone can purchase items publicly offered. But you can not compel that baker to make a special order even if its generally offered as a service.

                • Tim

                  I generally agree. Anyone can purchase items publicly offered. If one of those items on the “menu” includes “We will bake you a three tiered wedding-style cake with fancy trimming as pictured here in our brochure,” they cannot say they won’t do it just because of how it will be used.

                  You’re most right, they can deny a “custom” order that requires new creativity or which involves the expression of something they disagree with.

                  But if they have a public catalogue of offerings that features a wedding-style cake, they can’t refuse to sell it to you just because they get wind of how it might be used. They’ve offered it up to the public-at-large, and it’s not of their business once you purchase it, they have no interest in it beyond that point.

                  And since apparently baking such a style of cake is not intrinsically controversial to them, they have to do it. You can’t make them say anything or depict anything new on the cake, of course, but they have to at least give you the cake depicted in their public catalog.

                  It’s really supposed to be a “no questions asked” sort of thing. They offer this cake, they don’t care how you’re going to use it. Maybe you’re just going to eat it yourself, or wreck it in a prank. None of their business. And just because they “overhear” how it is going to be used, doesn’t suddenly change that. Then they just should pretend they didn’t hear as the knowledge adds nothing to the moral consideration.

                • Adam__Baum

                  But if your widget is a small round magnet (bucky balls) the state can force you NOT to sell it to anyone, because one poorly supervised child (who was old enough to know better) ingested them and perforated her entrails.

              • guest

                Catholic social teaching does not support unjust laws.

              • Adam__Baum

                But is apparently up to the customers to use the state to nanny the vendor.
                The principle of “public accomodation” was a judicial contrivance to rid us of invidious and capricious racial discrimination,and like many judical sleight-of-hands, becomes an unlimited general warrant against justice in the hands of activists like you.
                You want unbounded “principles”, go to any statist hell-hole. Jackbooted regimes always have laws an writes to support their impositions on the necks of their subjects.

          • Carl

            @ Tim
            You are incorrect… I know of no examples of private businesses being compelled to contract with another…There is no public accommodation! The Public accommodation exception includes renting a home, renting facilities, and restaurant food service. Basically property made available to the public.

            Where’s the legal precedence for forcing private enterprise into doing business with another?! Businesses discriminate all the time, when does Microsoft do business with Apple? When does Ford do business with GM? Even suppliers of larger corporations such as the ones mentioned are excluded from the other large corp.

            Where’s the legal precedence for compelling a private enterprise to explain their business decisions. If I make something on my private property who are you to tell me who I can sell it to? I can sell it to who ever I want and I don’t need to explain myself!

            Just what kind of society do you want to live in that allows politicians micromanage our every thought and business transaction?

            • Art Deco

              IIRC Gottfried Dietze’s critiques of civil rights law published in 1968 (and he was trained in jurisprudence), the range of enterprises considered accommodations or engaged in ‘inter-state commerce’ was prior to 1965 quite circumscribed and could be enumerated on your fingers.

            • Tim

              As you say “property made available to the public.” Apple can’t be compelled to do business with Microsoft. HOWEVER, if Microsoft wanted to send a bunch of its employees out to Best Buy because Microsoft decided they wanted to use Apple computers for something (not as part of some market-manipulating trick, mind you, but because they had a project or office-environment genuinely needing Apple products)…Apple could NOT tell Best Buy “you are forbidden to sell iPhones to Microsoft representatives!” because the iPhone is offered for sale publicly in the stores, and businesses and stores are NOT allowed to dictate whom they can and can’t sell to once the general offer to “the public at large” has been made. Private backroom deals are entirely different. But SHOPS and STORES definitely are included in “public accommodations” (as well as hotels, etc).

            • Adam__Baum

              That’s exactly the kind of society he wants. He’s why we can’t select a lightbulb that works, or doesn’t require a haz-mat team if it breaks, heck he needs big brother in his bathroom dictating the type of “porcelain throne” he is allowed to have.

              All hail the good and might god, state. Elections don’t make office-holders, they make demigods for statists to worship.

            • Art Deco

              Businesses discriminate all the time, when does Microsoft do business with Apple? When does Ford do business with GM?

              Gearheads and computer geeks are not Very Special People.

          • Adam__Baum

            “This is how the whole concept of civil rights works…”

            That anybody can support the idea that some individuals are members of “classes” that are “protected”, while others are not-and not see this an affront to justice, or insist that one should be forced to lie rather than say “I choose not to contract”,shows a deeply distorted view.

            I’m reminded of the “minority” set-asides where men make their wives the putative owners of businesses to qualify for various preferences, or when O.J. Simson became part iowner of a radio station on an FCC set-aside..

            You really need to stop sounding like you are a recent college graduate without enough life experience to engage an argument without parroting your favorite professor. .

            • Crusader for Christ

              “…some individuals are members of “classes” that are “protected”, while others are not…”

              Equal Justice Under Law…..NOT!

      • Art Deco

        The problem is that ‘public accomodation’ principles are problematic as well, and gratuitous almost everywhere in a modern economy. We are not operating motels in the Australian outback.

    • Adam__Baum

      Why do you have to be lawyer to have an opinion on law?

      • Slainte

        Just because. :)

        • Adam__Baum

          What’s interesting about the practice of law is that while it is unlawful to practice without a license, one judge forced by the circumstances of the case to confront what constitutes the “practice of law” said it was neither necessary or desirable to define it; rather it would be those things lawyers ordinarily do.
          In other words, it’s what we say it is. The Bar is an odious thing.

          • slainte

            Evolving public policy shapes the interpretation of black letter law which then yields unexpected results.

  • Schlomo

    As a jewish person I find it disgusting that people are using their religion to deny public accommodation to another person. We’ve been down that road before and it wasn’t pretty.

    • Art Deco

      As a gentile, I find it disgusting you are trading in the idea that people should not be free to associate and contract on their own account at their own discretion. We have been down that road before and it wasn’t pretty.

    • Bob

      Ask the Orthodox or Hasidic Jewish butcher or shop owner if he should be forced by law to serve pork sandwiches on a Saturday.

      • Carl

        Great example Bob, homosexuals should not be refused from ordering Kosher foods for their parties or receptions, but its quite another thing to force someone to create a platter of food that doesn’t represent their brand or beliefs.

        • Bob

          You’re right. The Lesbian coming in to the Christian baker to buy cookies, cupcakes, doughnuts, a cake for dessert that night…..no moral issue. But a lesbian couple coming in to the same bakery and asking the devout Catholic to make a wedding cake for their same sex wedding (and therefore, approving of their marriage) ……moral problem. The Catholic believes homosexual acts and gay marriage is a sin. To bake a cake that approves and celebrates that sin would be a cooperation in that sin.

          • Carl

            A business owner has no moral issue providing a cake for anyone even if customer states willingly or by accident the purpose of said cake. There is a moral consent when a bakery decorates cake with a homosexual design and has the right to refuse.

            A cake designer should have the right to NOT create cakes in any design they don’t deem appropriate. I’m not going to list the possibilities, use your imagination.

            • Valentin

              “A business owner has no moral issue providing a cake for anyone even if customer states willingly or by accident the purpose of said cake.” If I sell knives and someone tells me they want a knife for suicide than I clearly have a problem because my product is going towards something wrong.

          • Tim

            Carl is right. It would only cross the line of violating conscience if they were required to write some message or controversial design.

            Simply selling a cake, however, is not expression or constitute any sort of approbation of what it is used for. If you’d admit they could sell a bunch of cupcakes or a plain sheet-cake to serve at the reception, there is no real grounds for refusing to sell a tiered cake with floral trimmings (ie, a “wedding-style” cake), as though there may a cultural association of that design with weddings, in itself it is just a tiered design and doesn’t constitute any sort of intrinsic meaning or expression of support for the wedding or union. It’s just a style.

            If there was some message that they demanded be written (and couldn’t do it themselves) or insisted you put two groom statues on top, then that would cross the line. But in itself, a cake merely being a style often associated with weddings is not enough to claim that you’re being forced to actively express support for something you don’t; you’re just selling an in-itself neutral and generic product.

            • Bob

              But if the devout Catholic knows that it’s the lesbian couples own cake for their “wedding”, then said Catholic is totally justified in saying “NO CAKE FOR YOU!”

              • Tim

                No, no more than if they were just trying to buy silverwear or napkins for the reception, or (for that matter) a bed for their shared bedroom, etc. The principle you are imaging, once admitted, would be a huge slippery slope.

                There is a reason the church in the modern world got rid of the excommunication “vitandi”

                • Art Deco

                  Is it your contention that the vendors are obligated to sell cake or that they are not self-excommunicated for selling cake?

                  • Tim

                    It’s my contention that A) according to Catholic principles, selling a “blank” cake does not make you an accessory to sin, B) according to Catholic principles, the “public accommodation” laws are fully in accordance with social teaching, and C) that even for someone in whose religion it does make you an accessory, it is not an unreasonable “violation of religious freedom” to require the sale of the cake because the person doesn’t have to be a public accommodation in the first place if they don’t like how our market works. There is no right to have a stall in the bazaar. It’s also my assertion that D) even in Catholic thought, there can be limitations on religious freedom (of non-Catholics, at least) for legitimate state interests, and E) that the public accommodation stuff is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, so talk of “forced at gunpoint” or “thrown in jail” is just hysterical. Someone who doesn’t want to sell to the public can always stop selling to the public.

                    • guest

                      No one is obligated to conform to an unjust law. An unjust law is no law at all. In fact, we should oppose these unjust laws.

                      Any law that forces one to cooperate with such things that are so contrary to nature and the common good is no law to be obeyed.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      Law is the expression of the general will. Now, who is to decide whether a law is just or unjust? Between the people, who personally or by their representatives enact the law and the individual, there is no common superior, who can decide between them. If every citizen is to be the judge in his own cause, we should have mere anarchy.

                      That is why Rousseau says, “In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

                      Of course, the law only concerns itself with actions, not opinions, so freedom of conscience, which is an internal freedom, is unaffected.

                    • Pay

                      The Vatican has clearly stated sexual desires are not morally equal to race. Also, we know same sex faux marriage is a grave injustice. Laws protecting such aberrations are self evidently unjust. No one is bound.

                    • Crusader for Christ

                      “There is no right to have a stall in the bazaar.” Sounds like a Fascist or Communist to me. That thought presupposes the State owns all, and dispenses items at its pleasure.

                      In the (formerly) free US of A, having a stall at the bazaar was a birthright of all, since all were free to do as they wished (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing), with law generally confined to contracts and obvious crime (theft, murder, etc). The bazaar was a privately owned piece of real estate. You worked with the private owner, not the State, to obtain stall space.

                      Those days are gone now. The State owns all: the land, the machines, and the people. Evil is very close, and is going to break loose soon.

                    • Art Deco

                      It is my contention that you have backed yourself into an interesting corner where you are instructing perfect strangers in situations dependent on granular details what their religious obligations are and melding private and common property (while failing to provide a single example of supralocal authority prohibiting a vendor from limiting his custom).

                      And it is all in the service of one thing: making the world safer for pushy sexual deviants.

                      Well, some people have an arresting hierarchy of valued things.

                    • Pay

                      Basically, the logic goes like this I want what I want and if it imposes immoral things on you too bad I want it. The end.

                    • Valentin

                      If I decorate a room for a satanic ritual it is no different providing what ever cake or goat heads I sell to them both situations I would be providing an accessory to an evil and disgusting cause therefore I would either be a tool or key player.

                • Bob

                  Yes…..if I own a store, and I’m fully aware that the lesbian couple is purchasing products from me for their sinful nuptials, I can definitely tell them to go shop somewhere else.

                  If a known alcoholic comes in to the bar I own looking for a drink, I can tell him no, and to leave.

                  If someone that’s a known thief amongst the merchants in my town walks in my store, I can ask him to leave.

                • Bob

                  If I was a medical manufacturer of surgical forceps, and planned parenthood came to me to order 5000 forceps for their abortion services and clinics, as a devout Catholic medical manufacturer owner, should I not be allowed to tell PP to go elsewhere to buy their forceps?

                  • Tim

                    No. No more than a gun shop can refuse to sell to someone with a criminal record but no legal impediment to buying.

                    If you put items in your “front window,” as it were, then anyone can come in and buy them, and who they are or why they want the thing is not the business’s business.

                    There is not, in the modern economy, some principle of economic “excommunication.” If you think your religion has one, you should not be offering products to the public-at-large.

                    A taxi driver can’t refuse to drop you off by a strip-club (or an abortion clinic for that matter) either.

                    The way our market works (and it’s not a moral problem), businesses lose any legitimate interest in a product once it leaves the store. Once the other person is the owner, it is alienated from you, you have no responsibility for it if it is an otherwise legal non-dangerous product.

                    • guest

                      It certainly is a moral problem. Driving one to murder another is definitely a moral problem. Now, the type of cooperation is one thing, but the conscience of the driver is another. To claim there is no moral problem is to deny the right’s of the driver to not violate his conscience.

                    • Tim

                      Then he shouldn’t be offering a public taxi service. Transport companies have no interest, legally or morally, in what the person does once they get to their destination. If someone’s unnuanced conscience thinks there is some moral issue (though in reality there is not) because of an overly scrupulous notion of cooperation or complicity, such a person should consider that providing a service to the public is not for them.

                    • Art Deco

                      You keep returning to this theme: no one has a franchise to earn a living unless it is done according to the specifications of you and people who think like you. You fancy it legitimate to slap the character string ‘public accommodation’ on whatever someone does for compensation and then they’re your bitch. Unjust. And asinine too.

                    • Tim

                      There are lots of ways to earn a living without offering products to the public at large. But when you do, the offer is “blind” and unconditional

                    • guest

                      That is not a moral law. In fact, blindness to the law is objectively sinful.

                    • slainte

                      So are you suggesting that the makers and distributors of uranium products should be compelled to sell their product to the Iranians or the North Koreans to facilitate their atomic ambitions?

                    • Tim

                      That is an industry that is extremely limited and licensed to begin with. I don’t think Uranium is offered for sale in public stores at all. The number of people licensed to buy it is very much regulated in general.

                    • Valentin

                      You are a irrational bureaucrat aren’t you by picking and choosing what is off bounds according to your estimation. By the way you can buy uranium online at amazon.

                    • slainte

                      Just a different market international in scope.
                      The principle though remains the same:
                      Should a seller be compelled to sell what he offers to the world at large to any buyer without distinction?

                    • Guest

                      Spoken like one who supports tyranny.

                      If the would-be killer does not like it get another cab.

                      The tender conscience of the driver is closer to the truth than the legalistic using a moral theology calculus as to promote injustice.

                    • Tim

                      You may think it promotes evil in the one specific case of the murderer, but the general principle supports much more good than evil in general, even if to work, they must cover all. Don’t you know the speech in A Man for All Seasons? Yes, I’d give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

                    • Valentin

                      Isn’t that a utilitarian idea that material provisions don’t need to be in line with the moral good? Why should transport companies have no interest in what their services go towards?

                    • Bob

                      Your argument has no logical continuation.

                      Yes, a taxi driver can refuse to drop you off at a strip club or an abortion clinic. Taxi driver’s often in big cities refuse to take patrons to certain parts of town because it is too dangerous.

                      And yes, a Catholic medical supplier can refuse to sell to planned parenthood. If planned parenthood were to try to have pizza’s delivered to its clinic, the Catholic Italian owner of the pizza restaurant has every right to say no. This actually happens.

                    • Art Deco

                      No more than a gun shop can refuse to sell to someone with a criminal record but no legal impediment to buying.

                      Again, Tim, you need a new attorney.

                    • Carl

                      Tim, you take public accommodation too far, you can only violate law when you discriminate against someone based on race, religion, disability, national origin, and yes in some areas, sexual orientation. And you must be offering something to the general public as in property for sale or rent. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt.

                      Yes, owning brick and mortar store, you can get in trouble for excluding any of the above title holders on anything you offer to the general public. Mail order and Web site sales are considered “brick and mortar” stores.

                      Sexual orientation laws have given this minority a powerful sword to swath Christians into submission or to feed them to the lions in the coliseum of our Court system.

                      But no business owner can be compelled to produce something they didn’t offer as a public accommodation, for example, if you offered to make any design on a cake your putting yourself in jeopardy if you refuse special designs for one of the “protected class.” You did address this.

                      Generally, private business operators not offering public accommodations can not be compelled to perform work outside their own discretion, they may have difficulty if they are the only business in a one horse town—albeit an obscure example.

                      An electrician who works off private property cannot be compelled to do business by authorities. Neither can a baker, food caterer, or any other business who works off private property with no “public accommodations.”

                      I think the moral of the story is to hire a lawyer before you advertise your business to avoid violating “public accommodation laws.”

                      This is where hedonistic society has brought us.

                    • Tim

                      A bakery is little different from a restaurant. Both offer to cook a food in their menu, even if it hasn’t been cooked yet.

                      Where does your slippery slope end? Can a restaurant refuse to seat a party that comes in to celebrate a gay wedding? Can they refuse to serve them cake listed on the menu if they might consider it their “wedding.”

                    • Carl

                      No, but the proprietor has a right regulate how his business executes their service. For example they can not allow any political or social advertising or soliciting. Limit how product is delivered, served or presented—of course without violating discrimination (protected class) laws!

                    • Carl

                      False:
                      The taxi driver would have to knowingly refuse to drive a homosexual man to a male strip club to be considered violating the law while also at the same time driving heterosexual males to female strip clubs.

                      But if the taxi driver could prove he never drives anyone to any strip club he has not violated discrimination laws.

                    • Carl

                      Strip club patrons are not included in the “protected class”

                    • Tim

                      The system becomes a bizarre “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” game if a taxi driver refuses to take me if I ask to be driven to the strip club, but not if I ask to be taken to the grocery store next door to it. For all he knows, I’m just giving the strip-club as a convenient landmark and don’t even plan to go in, just to walk from there to a friend’s apartment, etc. It really shouldn’t be any of his business, and if it isn’t currently against the law, I’d be fine if it were. I don’t think busybodies should be able to make the rest of us walk on eggshells to avoid setting off their sensitivities about how we’re going to use a product that they have no longer have any interest in once the exchange is complete.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      Carl
                      Taxi drivers are “common carriers” and have to bring themselves within one of the recognized categories of excuses to refuse business. This goes back to at least the 2nd century AD in the Praetorian Edict.

                    • Pay

                      No one is bound to cooperate, even remotely, with murder.

                    • Carl

                      It is legal to refuse to sell a house to a young person in a 55 and above community. Illegal to not to sell something to someone above the age of 40 (protected class).

                      A shop keeper has to knowingly refuse to do business with a “protected class” patron for that reason. For example, if a shop keeper is not comfortable renting his product based upon a gut feeling and that same patron is among the protected class this does not automatically make this a discrimination case!

                      Oral and written words and possibly “demonstrated actions of proprietor” must prove discrimination has occurred.

                      It’s not absolute to compel any proprietor to do business with just anyone for anything.

                    • Crusader for Christ

                      “A taxi driver can’t refuse to drop you off by a strip-club (or an abortion clinic for that matter) either.” Then why can Muslim taxi drivers in Detroit refuse to serve “improperly” dressed women, or refuse to take someone to a Jewish synagogue and be APPLAUDED for it by the State?

                      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129678/Its-religion-Muslim-taxi-driver-dumps-family-cab-spotting-unopened-bottle-wine.html

                      Hmmmmmmmm???? Could it have anything to do with threat of massive force?

                      (This falls under the concept of “You only have the rights you are willing to kill someone who tries to take them away from you.”

                • Guest

                  The person selling any particular service has a conscience. Their conscience must be obeyed. If one comes in to buy a camera and says they want to start to film child porn one is not obligated to comply with such a request.

                  • Tim

                    Legally, that’s untrue. If you’re selling a neutral product to the public, you have no interest, morally or legally, in what happens once it leaves the store. Suspected illicit use puts no obligations, morally or legally, on you as shopkeeper.

                    • guest

                      I am taking about the moral law. And yes one has an obligation to one’s conscience. To force one to violate that is immoral.

                    • Tim

                      First, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Again, these are civil matters, not criminal. A person who wants the benefits of access to the public market has to play by the rules of that market. They don’t have to serve anyone; they could leave the business entirely .

                      Second, respecting conscience of others is not an absolute principle. We are not beholden to every thing someone may feel their conscience requires of them, only within reason. Allowing public accommodations to put conditions on the future use of their products beyond the sale threatens to place an unreasonable burden on society as a whole.

                    • Guest

                      The civil law forces people all the time. The pain of fines is force. And if you do not pay the fine then the criminal law can come into play.

                      The rules must be just. Forcing anyone to cooperate with unnatural things is unjust.

                      It is not putting conditions on the sale of a commodity. It is participating in another’s immoral and unnatural public acts.

                    • Tim

                      Being the one who sold something a product with which they did something does not make you a participant in any morally relevant sense.

                    • Valentin

                      Then you are a tool and contributor smart one.

                    • Valentin

                      “First, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.” According to the reports in this article gays are forcing people to either give them a product or shut down their shop.

            • Art Deco

              Tim, if you are coerced into performance of a service against your discretion, your conscience has been violated.

            • Valentin

              You don’t think there are messages in actions unless symbols are specifically written on a cake?

          • Valentin

            Good point.

    • ericpinola

      not a good connection

    • Adam__Baum

      If you were really Jewish, you’d know that as a formal name it’s capitalized.

  • Andy

    I feel sorry for the bakers and florists and photographers and DJs. Not so much the “venues”… people should be marrying inside a Church. IMHO.

    • thisoldspouse

      Doesn’t matter. Venues are private property, owned by private individuals.

  • fred 473

    11 instnces of recrimination – versus how many millions over the centuries?

    • Adam__Baum

      Hundreds of millions have died in the gulags and concentration camps of the same secular-left state idolaters that are using their writs and courts (for now, it always gets nastier later) to remake society in their image.

    • thisoldspouse

      I don’t know. Why don’t you recount them for us?

  • Adam__Baum

    The trolls should be descending on Tarbucks, whose CEO famously announced that he didn’t want authentic marriage advovates or firearms owners. I’m going to demand a traditional marriage latte, and a a special expresso called “45 caliber”, to be catered at an NRA meeting. When I don’t get my way, I’m suing and I expect the help of all the legal beagles that litigated and adjudicated these complaints.

    • Tim

      But you’re comparing apples and oranges! Starbucks would NOT be allowed to refuse to cater an NRA convention or to refuse sale of coffee to them.

      • Art Deco

        Tim, you need to get a new lawyer. Preferably a competent one.

  • thisoldspouse

    Everyone seems to be missing the point that the Christian merchants ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

    • Adam__Baum

      Well, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

      • Crusader for Christ

        Bravo! Well Said!

    • Art Deco

      That is not a matter of political concern so long as it is not state enforced. The judiciary, and by extension the bar in general, is the source of about a quarter of what is asinine and meretricious in this country. The helping professions, the entertainment industry, and academe are pleased to supply the rest.

      • Art Deco

        They get some assistance components of the Church and from protestant congregations. The thing is, these institutions are so demoralized, silly, and torpid, that they are just auxilliaries. They are not only sellouts, they are redundant sellouts.

      • thisoldspouse

        It IS a matter of state enforcement by NON-enforcement of laws which should be protecting merchants who don’t want violate their consciences.

  • Amadeus

    Really, it is plain and simple…
    If you do not want to provide services for everyone, you should not be in business or providing services to the general public.
    If someone wants to discriminate, they are more than welcome to do so in their private home or churches; just do not so it in the public business sector.

    • thisoldspouse

      Why is this statement of yours “plain and simple?” Because you say it is?

      Do not people OWN their businesses, invest their own private money, and therefore have a right to control how that business is operated? Do not customers have a right to NOT patronize a business with which they have a fundamental philosophical agreement? Why should this not go the other way? Where are merchants’ rights?

      Transactions must necessarily be voluntary in a free society. When they are not, we have Marxism.

      • Adam__Baum

        Afterall, they didn’t build that business, somebody else did.

        • thisoldspouse

          Yeah, didn’t our Marxist-in-Chief tell us so?

          • Adam__Baum

            Indeed he did, and we can believe him -because he told us his monstrosity would lower costs and allow us to keep our plan and it was unpatriotic to raise the debt ceiling.

        • Tim

          In a sense. Somebody else built the roads, the infrastructure, etc

          You mention the right of people to not do business “on conscience.” So would you agree that a liberal supplier could, then, refuse to sell any ingredients to the baker based on his exclusion of gays, or the landlord refuse to rent out the shop to him???

          If your principle holds, it would have to work both ways. Yet I sense that if it began to, you’d start to see religious “persecution” in it.

          • Guest

            Your logic here makes all issues equal. That may be good moral relativism, but not good moral reasoning.

            • Tim

              We live in a pluralist society. I’m not even making a judgment on whether that, in itself, is ideal or not. But it’s just a fact.

              You seem to be imagining a society where Christian morality has the privileged, consensus, “default” status. Where, for example, the truth of Christian morality could be used to BOTH allow the baker to refuse service for a gay wedding, but NOT allow the grocer to refuse to sell ingredients to the baker on account of the baker’s Christianity. In other words, to have a “double standard” where Christianity, on account of its truth, has absolute precedence and gets to claim conscience when it needs it, but also trump other people’s conscience when it needs it.

              That might be good, I dunno. But either way it doesn’t exist now. We live in a pluralist society, and as such the grocer’s conscience must have equal weight to the baker’s. If the baker can refuse service to the gay wedding, the grocer can refuse selling to the baker. There has to be consistency. I’d prefer a world where neither can refuse to each other.

              Commerce is obstructed by the idea of people constantly ideologically retaliating against each other using withholding service as a weapon. Commerce is obstructed it when it becomes politicized like that. It is better for everyone to have a principle of universal non-refusal rather than one of universal right to refuse (assuming it’s not construable as a free expression question). What you definitely CAN’T have in a pluralist society, though, is a principle of one-sided selective refusal.

          • Valentin

            You don’t get it Gays and Liberals already do that and get away with it. Why do you pretend that a merchant who sells something does not have a say in his contract?

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Yes “people OWN their businesses,” but, in Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

        • Carl

          Reconcile that socialist mantra with the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

          Roosevelt’s words turn the Bill of Rights upside down just like the new guy who wants to redistribute someone else’s wealth!

        • Art Deco

          1. Economic activity creates externalities. What do you do about them?

          2. There are information deficits and asymmetries in markets.

          3. There is collusion among vendors.

          T. Roosevelt was known for his public antagonism to large (often collusive) industrial combines. That sort of thing is irrelevant to this discussion.

        • Guest

          How is the common good protected by forcing good people to violate their conscience and publicly cater to an act contrary to nature?

    • Adam__Baum

      Right, we all need to be compelled to do the things we find objectionable.
      Flagmakers should have no right not to affix the swastika to a red flag, and the same with ISP’s who (hah, hah, like they’ve ever turned away a dollar) might object to hosting “Imperialwizarddotcom”.

    • Pay

      Pure tyranny. The pelvic Left forces all to submit to their evil ideology.

    • Art Deco

      It is actually simpler.

      1. Each person has a franchise to earn a living.
      2. Each person has a franchise to purchase merchandise or services that do not harm public health, public safety, or public morals.

      3. Licensed attorneys and sundry twits do not get to determine the boundaries of anyone’s custom.

  • Robert Homan

    We need more of this sentiment on this comment board I think. Is what we are doing here productive? Will it lead to conversions? It’s more difficult but what if we got off the Internet and tried something more radical towards love.

    “…the beginning of holiness is love. The ability to love yourself as you are. The ability to love others as they are. Not to look at someone and the first thing that comes to mind is how you can fix them to make them better, but how they can make you better. Understanding your own flaws and weaknesses well enough to be able to look at another’s and to not turn up your nose. Let me clarify, this does not mean that we should not see sin. However, the only way for a sin to be rectified is for the person who is committing it to also see it as sin. The only hope we have at changing the world is to convert the world. We will never change the world by forming angry mobs, by shaming those whose lives we find in error, by composing scathing rhetoric to attack our opponents. We change the world through lives of holiness. Not condemning with fear or shame, but by taking up our cross daily. Our cross. Not by slapping crosses on those running away from us. The only change we can truly hope for is from God. God is the one who expands our ability to love. It doesn’t matter where you started, only he can change us.”

    • Bob

      I cut and pasted this posting from another article from Slainte, it’s along the same lines, and actually quite beautiful:

      “Pastoral considerations must be ordered by Catholic Dogma lest Love and Mercy be interpreted as license to do what one wants, rather than what one ought.”

    • guest

      We need less emotion and more true love. Cooperating with evil against one’s conscience is wrong. We must be concerned not only with the faux couple but with the store keeper and all of society especially the affects on children. When talking of love and evangelization we must remember it is not only about one specific faux married group but others that are deeply affected in terms of evangelization and salvation of souls.

    • Valentin

      How is helping someone get better not a part or way of love? It at least seems that one thing lacking in the US is fatherly love (as well as in some cases motherly love).

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    We’re all dhimmis now.

    • Crusader for Christ

      Bravo! Bravo! Well Said!

  • yodacat

    god will show mercy to those who belittle and degrade those who are different. Even homophobes.

    • Pay

      To the unprincipled everyone who does not embrace deviant ideology is a “homophobe”.

    • R. K. Ich

      Homophobe is one of those throw away words that makes me chuckle. It’s a term devoid of substance and sense, because no man or woman can be truly a homosexual, since sex is by naturally defined by complimentary gender. So whether one masturbates, violates an animal, or willingly violates willing members of the same gender, none of those activities truly constitute sex. Homosexuals do not truly exist; just people who melt their sexuality into a dark fantasy without the substance of real physical union. Ergo, there’s nothing to fear, but there is a swath of people we ought to pity for and pray for because of the deep delusion they must imbibe to carry on in such a way.

    • Valentin

      Treating someone the way they ought to be treated is not belittling or degrading besides either we are with Christ or against him (as he himself explained to us).

  • yodacat

    One thing everyone seems to be missing: it is not a sin to be gay or lesbian. Everyone, and I mean everyone, seems to be assuming, without any actual evidence or proof, that these people are having some sort of sexual relationship. Are they peeking in through bedroom windows? Sending out private detectives? And if so, why? Marriage is not all about sex. And if any of you believe it is, you should reconsider your priorities.
    And how about heterosexual marriages? Statistically most heterosexual couples have sex before marriage, and these day many and probably most live together ‘as man and wife: for years, in most cases, before marriage. According to the catechism and canon law, they are living in sin-of course that assumes they are having sexual relations. Most are also practicing some sort of birth control. Also a sin.
    So the thinking here seems to be this: We assume that gay and lesbian couples are having or are going to have some sort of sexual relationship, which is a sin because it is not for procreation. However, we cheer on those heterosexual couples who probably also have sex, especially since they likely live together, and like as not practice sinful birth control. But that is ok because it is an unmarried man and an unmarried woman sinning together as opposed to an unmarried woman and woman or unmarried man and man having sex( we assume, but have no proof).

    So, it is okay to cheer on a heterosexual couple sinning, and even encouraging them, but to do the same for a homosexual couple is participating in sin.

    I smell the stench of hypocrisy.

    One last thought. nowhere, in any catechism does it say anything about marriage being a sin. if the homosexual couple confesses before their marriage (a civl contract, by the way), there is no sin, just as if the sexually active and practicing birth control heterosexual confesses their sin before the marriage, there is no sin to be participating in. Ergo, no sin has occurred and there is no basis to refuse to take a picture, bake a cake or arrange some flowers.

    And the last word?

    Hypocrisy.

    • thisoldspouse

      How does someone “be” gay or lesbian?

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        According to the Yogyakarta Principles, “Sexual orientation is understood to refer to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender.”

        It is a capacity, not an action; a man in a dark room has the power of sight (he is not blind), but he cannot perform the act of seeing.

      • Pay

        Those are political ideologies.

    • Pay

      You are a bit confused it seems. The people in question do not have to commit an illicit act in front of you to be causing moral concern. Holding oneself out in public as “married” when one is with the same sex is wrong and objectively sinful in a very grave way.

      • Valentin

        Exactly one way to put is that God is all knowing which means that he knows when someone is doing something messed up.

    • R. K. Ich

      Nonsense! It’s a category error to compare normal sexuality outside the bounds of licit use with that of sodomy or lesbianism. The former is natural but unprincipled while the latter is radically unnatural no matter how principled. We rightly feel shame for the former, and are justified at the sense of abomination and repulsion for the latter. Both acts are sinful, but not equally sinful.

    • Valentin

      God did not create anyone to have them put their penis in another’s anus therefore it is stupid and wrong and therefore a sin(no one is born that way just as no one is born having sex with their wife).

  • Tony

    I don’t think one can claim “persecution” for refraining from remote material cooperation with evil…

    • Pay

      Forcing one to act against their conscience is persecution.

      • Tim

        Not when the only retaliation you are threatening is to take away something that is already only a privilege (ie, to be a public accommodation).

        • Art Deco

          You are telling us all it is a ‘privilege’ to earn a living as a merchant. It is, when state extortion and crony capitalism are the order of the day.

        • guest

          Privilege?

  • Danielck

    Homosexuality is defined by sex. It cannot be defined by marriage. It cannot be defined by children. And it certainly cannot be defined by love. It is defined AT THE MOMENT WHEN two folks of the same sex engage in perverted sex. Were sex not involved in the relationship it could not be homo-sexual. “Same sex attraction” is not homo-sexuality. Homosexuality is defined by sex. Heterosexuality is defined by God.

    • Valentin

      I don’t even think it can be defined by sex simply because there are only two sexes male and female. What so many people call “homosexuality” is quite simply a perversion and twisting of desires and messed up actions such as sodomy which is no different than two guys jacking off.

  • hombre111

    Hmm. I read this article twice to make sure I understood what the author is trying to say. He did a great job of clearly articulating the reasons behind judicial decisions. I am not sure he convinced me that what is going on is a matter of persecution. We do have the ambiguity, and the struggle, about what it means to live and do business in a pluralistic society. If most judges seem to be deciding against businesses who refuse to do business with gay couples, it is disingenuous to say they are all tools of the gay conspiracy. They are serious men who are trying to understand, and apply, the law. In my lifetime there were all those God-fearing people who said they had nothing against blacks as individuals, but declared black/white marriages immoral. States even had laws against such marriages. Seems very close to the argument being made in this article.

    • Art Deco

      At least be concise with your cliches.

    • Pay

      Since when are immoral acts comparable to skin color?

      • Art Deco

        Of course they are not.

        Barack Obama is not the only one whose expressed opinions are derivative.

      • hombre111

        Inter-racial marriage was considered immoral.

        • guest

          So? They are not morally equivalent.

          • hombre111

            A couple of generations ago, in the eyes of some people, they were.

            • guest

              Objectively there was no moral defect regardless of one’s erroneous views. That is not equal to the truth of the matter today.

              • hombre111

                But we live in a pluralist society where many people disagree with this Catholic position. The Supreme Court with its Catholic majority has disagreed. It is against this background that other judges are trying to apply the law.

                • Guest

                  When does truth enter your calculus?

                  • Art Deco

                    It does not. The fraud goes all the way down.

                  • hombre111

                    In this matter, over the course of many years, I have concluded that the Church is simply wrong in its position about gay marriage, and some day in the future, it will be falling over backward with apologies. The Court has decided that gays have a right to civil marriage. So, the Church should distinguish between civil marriage and sacramental marriage, and get out of the civil marriage business. Too many people want to get married in church, not because they believe in marriage as a sacrament, but because the church is a beautiful place and they are pleasing Grandma. Then the Church could do what it does in other countries, focusing instead on celebrating the sacrament of marriage with properly evangelized and carefully prepared couples who choose to get married in church as an expression of their own deep faith. This still gets murky, because many Catholics are marrying non-Catholics.

                    • Steve Frank

                      If the Church were to ever admit is was wrong about gay marriage (which it is not in my opinion), at that point it would be admitting something immensely more far reaching…namely that it is fallible in it’s teachings on matters of faith and morals. At that point, it would turn itself into just another Protestant denomination. It ain’t gonna happen. If it did, there would be another Schism.

                    • hombre111

                      I am not sure how infallible the Church can be about moral matters. Over the centuries, the Church has demonstrated again and again its moral fallibility. Take the centuries-long effort to block “usury,” or the charging of interest for loans. But as I see it, the Church can maintain its posture about gay marriage and simply step to the side. Let the civil law do what the civil law wants to do and perform all the gay marriages it wants. Within its own house, surrender the practice of performing civil marriages and perform lovingly and well the sacrament of matrimony.

                    • Steve Frank

                      Well looking the other way and apologizing are two different things. I think it’s very likely that if the Church continues to liberalize it will become quieter in it’s disapproval of homosexuality. However you’re not going to have a Pope announce that next week the Church will start offering the sacrament of marriage to gay couples. If that did happen, the traditionalist wing of the Church would declare such a Pope an ante Pope and a major schism would erupt.

                    • hombre111

                      The Church will apologize because she tried to force her view of morality on a pluralistic society where many if not most beg to differ. This put her in the position of the Moslems who try to force sharia law on the rest of society as soon as they have the power. Religious freedom is a difficult concept, if you really mean it.

                    • Valentin

                      The Holy Catholic Church Comes from Jesus Christ is therefore superior to the civil state.

                    • hombre111

                      That is an old argument that caused a lot of harm, if you know your Church history. The American Catholic Church showed the importance of the separation of Church and state.

                    • Elsaesser

                      Name one incident. It does not make the argument invalid.

                    • Elsaesser

                      Catholic Church in America is shrinking smartmouth.

                    • hombre111

                      Good point, and for many reasons. But what does that have to do with the separation of church and state?

                    • Guest

                      If the Church reversed her understand of Truth She would not be the true Church. Good luck with that. That is if I believed in luck.

                    • hombre111

                      Truth is as absolute as God. Unfortunately, we are finite. We reach for the Truth, but what we speak is the truth. To say that we speak the Truth is to become idolaters worshiping ourselves.

                    • hombre111

                      The Truth is as absolute and infinite as God. Unfortunately, we are finite beings. When we try to express the Truth, the best we can do is articulate the truth. To say otherwise is to turn ourselves into idolaters who worship their own words.

                    • guest

                      Do you accept Jesus is the authority behind His Church?

                    • hombre111

                      Of course. And sometimes he must weep when his Bride becomes stained and disoriented. Take the institutional evils that helped trigger the Reformation, or the “shepherds” who enabled the child molesters.

                    • Valentin

                      His bride does not become stained people simply spit at her and don’t appreciate her for who she is you pretentious fool.

                    • hombre111

                      The fact that the Church is a sinful Church is part of Catholic teaching. She won’t become a perfect bride until Christ returns in glory.

                    • Valentin

                      People who sin separate themselves from the Church that is why confession is sometimes called reconciliation.

                    • Art Deco

                      You are a fine example of poor episcopal discipline.

                    • Valentin

                      Marriage is about allowing life into the world by bringing man and woman together not two faggots jacking off.

                    • hombre111

                      If marriage was only about children, it would be forbidden between old men and women, or if one of the two were infertile.

                    • Athanasius De Angelus

                      Oh my goodness, hombre has NO LOGIC!
                      Two infertile couples (male & female) ARE NOT PURPOSELY MISUSING their sexual organs to get off LIKE THE GAYS!
                      Use your brain before shooting off your mouth!

                    • hombre111

                      So now you have to qualify the original statement, which said without qualification that the purpose of marriage is for the procreation of children. In recent memory, the Church has been forced to concede that marriage is also for the mutual joy and satisfaction of the couple. If the second suffices for an infertile man and woman, why doesn’t suffice for a gay couple? Both couples are using their sex organs for mutual pleasure. (I love being the devil’s advocate here!)

                    • Valentin

                      It is not only about that but it is simply an integral part of it and if someone does get married they have an obligation to at least try to let life into the world.

                    • thebigdog

                      Hombre, I asked you a couple of months ago if you supported homosexuality and you responded “not really”

                      Were you lying then or are you lying now?

                    • hombre111

                      Don’t know what “supporting homosexuality” means. I do recognize the dignity of homosexuals, thanks to the great homosexual men and women I have come to know over the years. I respect their right to a loving relationship in their life. I respect their longing and right to some kind of marriage.

                    • thebigdog

                      Do you also support brothers and sisters who love each other, are wonderful people and want to get married? If not, why not?

                    • hombre111

                      Of course not. But scholars agree that Joseph and Mary were probably first cousins.

                    • thebigdog

                      Thank you for responding, but you forgot to answer the “why not” part. Care to try again, without the Mary and Joseph non sequitur?

                    • thebigdog

                      C’mon Hombre, you are the last person on this planet who is ever at a loss for words… please answer the question.

                    • hombre111

                      Mmm. Been working on a retreat at the medium security prison and so I have to take a moment from my busy schedule. Brothers and sisters? The question of incest, of course. Too much genetic damage.

                    • thebigdog

                      Everybody is well aware of that, so voluntary sterilization would be presumed.

                      So, if a brother and sister, both WONDERFUL people and very much IN LOVE (incapable of reproducing) wanted to get married, why would you tell them that they can not?

                    • thebigdog

                      I see you have the time to comment elsewhere (and very lengthy I might add) but you don’t have the common decency to answer a simple straight forward question.

                      Typical liberal blowhard.

                    • hombre111

                      Rome once spoke on an issue and the American bishops asked for a clarification. Long silence followed. Finally, the frustrated bishops sent a representative to ask the person directly involved. He looked at the reverend bishop in surprise. “My silence was my answer,” he said. And so, I have nothing to say in response to your silly “what if.” I follow what the Church has said for centuries on the matter.

                    • hombre111

                      On second thought, bigdog, you do need a longer answer. Your question was asked in the same spirit as the questions put to Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus, following the cultural norm, responded with a putdown and a reply that shamed the questioner. Won’t do that.
                      What I will do is explain how I form opinions that beg to differ with some moral solemnities, like Humanae Vitae and the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I differ if there seems to be better logic, new facts, a better perspective, and a more adequate solution. I see none of these things in the Church’s traditional teaching about marriage between brother and sister.

                    • thebigdog

                      The issue of incest will be coming soon… after the enemies within (such as yourself) have paved the way for sodomites.

                      You will then find yourself in the unenviable position of either agreeing with the incest crowd or finding your arguments of opposition to be the same arguments you are trying to defeat in defense of the homosexual mafia.

                      Are you a homosexual Hombre?

                    • hombre111

                      The issue of incest has been around since Bible days, ie Noah and his daughters. Homosexual? Oh, brother. Where did you get your moniker, “thebigdog?” I suggest you listen to the gospel reading this Sunday.

                    • thebigdog

                      “The issue of incest has been around since Bible days, ie Noah and his daughters.”

                      Obviously I meant incest with relation to marriage.

                      “Homosexual? Oh, brother”

                      For someone who offers unsolicited opinions non stop, you tend to obfuscate when asked direct questions. Yes or no, do you suffer from same sex attraction? It’s only a disorder and not a sin if it isn’t acted upon.

                      Matthew 5:37 Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

                      “Where did you get your moniker, “thebigdog?”

                      Another non sequitur as distraction.

                      “I suggest you listen to the gospel reading this Sunday.”

                      Oh goodie — another thinly veiled self-righteous, arrogant, condescending lecture from a liberal.

                    • hombre111

                      I guess I was too subtle. My suggestion that you read Christ’s parable about humility was about as appropriate to the subject as your question about whether or not I am heterosexual or homosexual. My opinion has nothing to do with my orientation, but everything to do with logic, new facts, point of view, and adequacy.

                    • Athanasius De Angelus

                      Yes, you, hombre 111, should read the Bible and conform to the truth INSTEAD YOU conform to the sin of promoting SODOMY. SODOMY is the sin of two fruit cakes MISUSING their sexual organs so that they can get off on each other without producing any children. THIS is what HUMILITY IS ABOUT: To conform to GOD’s TRUTH and not to conform to YOUR OWN FILTHY SIN.

                      LIBERAL like YOU conform to SIN but true believers conform to GOD’s Truth. That a lesson in humility for you liberal, perverted clown!

                    • thebigdog

                      Yes or no Hombre, are you a homosexual (or a victim of same sex attraction)?

                      Logical deduction dictates that your refusal to respond means that the answer is yes.

                    • hombre111

                      Logical deduction dictates that my sexual orientation is none of your business.

                    • thebigdog

                      I would agree with that statement if we were two people shopping at the same store. However, you have chosen of your own free will to go public with your promotion of homosexual marriage.

                      While I personally couldn’t care less about your sexuality, we all
                      have a responsibility to make sure that vulnerable young people visiting this site, who may be influenced by your errors, are aware that the source of those errors promoting intrinsically disordered, gravely sinful behavior, is in fact himself a homosexual.

                      And he doesn’t even have the courage to admit it — arrogant, condescending liberal blowhard that he is.

                    • hombre111

                      O.K. Now let’s see if you believe me. I am 100% heterosexual in my tastes and desires. Not that it make any difference, since I am a celibate priest. I have not “promoted homosexual marriage,” but I have said that the Supreme Court has spoken and gays have a right to marry civilly. The Church needs to give up and accept the fact. I think there needs to be a distinction between civil marriage and who gets to be married in Church.

                    • thebigdog

                      Yes, I believe you — but why all the drama? In the future, please just answer simple questions in a straight forward manner.

                      And when the Supreme Court spoke on slavery being legal, would you have applied your same logic?

                      Didn’t think so.

                      Anyway, as a priest, you are obligated to promote Church teaching and not conflate liberal political sacred cows with eternal truth.

                      Thanks

                    • Art Deco

                      I see you read Andrew Greeley’s memoirs in 1987 and then read his remarks on the Scandal ca. 2003. Just gotta ride the wave!

                    • Art Deco

                      The Church was simply wrong not to pick you up by the scruff of your neck and toss you out the door.

                    • hombre111

                      It was too busy looking the other way from the accusations made against the lofty founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    Guest: I’m not sure if you know this, but “Hombre111″ claims to be an old “priest”, which would mean he’s either a liar or a guy who lives off the Church he spends his time bashing.
                    Either way, he’s a fraud.

                  • Athanasius De Angelus

                    You tell him!

                • Art Deco

                  The Supreme Court’s assessment of morality is well nigh irrelevant. The question at had would be whether or not the community’s exercise of discretion in these matters conflicts with any standing constitutional provision. (The answer, of course, is no).

                  • hombre111

                    I appreciate your point. But the Supreme Court was not making a decision on morality, but on what they saw as a right within the constitution. With the highest court in the land deciding that gays have a right to marry, judges then have to ponder how some people respond to gay marriage, and whether or not it conflicts with the law. As I said at the start, a murky situation in the midst of a plural society. But religious persecution? That is a stretch.

                    • Valentin

                      “But the Supreme Court was not making a decision on morality, but on what they saw as a right within the constitution.” Why should civil law be devoid of morals? that seems like one of the biggest mistakes people have made both in government decisions as well as business decisions, but hey as a mafia boss might say after whacking a victim “It’s only business”.

                    • Athanasius De Angelus

                      I like your style!

                    • hombre111

                      In a pluralistic society, people disagree on what is moral or not. One church cannot demand that its government base its laws on their view of morality. The Church has to be better at moral persuasion. Her arguments about gay marriage seem more and more hollow to more and more Americans.

                • Art Deco

                  It is not the business of the Supreme Court to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the ‘Catholic position’. It is their business to evaluate statutory law in light of constitutional provisions (which provides for popular sovereignty through elected legislatures).

                  • hombre111

                    And so they acted. The Church has wasted so much time, money, and energy, trying to rewrite laws in its own image and likeness. Time to accept reality and teach Catholic people to live contrary to the culture.

            • Adam__Baum

              Things change. In the eyes of young Germans, it was necessary to protect the “aryan race”. In your youth, the perception about hallucinogens changed. Funny thing how determining moral rectitude from popular whim works.
              In a couple years, perceptions of old coots btyy the young might change and they might decide that you aren’t worth the cost of the medicine required to maintain your life. Make sure you are as sanguine about popular whim then, ok?

    • Paul McGuire

      Exactly. I might in some ways sympathize for the business owners mentioned but I wouldn’t call it persecution. Compared to persecution against Christians going on in other countries currently it is disingenuous to suggest that closing a bakery is persecution.

      In Nigeria Christians are being killed by Jihadists intent on eradicating them from existence. In Pakistan suicide bombers killed some 90 worshipers after attacking a church filled with 500. In Egypt we saw violence against the Coptic Christians who were attacked and driven out of their homes. This is persecution. The examples in this article, not so much.

      Persecution generally means attacking and labeling a group as problematic simply by their membership. As we have seen, there are many Christians in the US who are allies to the LGBT community so they are not being attacked. As a country, the majority seems to have a problem with those who would insist that their religion prevents them from participating in a same-sex wedding. That doesn’t make their response equal to persecution of the past.

      • Pay

        When should Cristians start to be concerned? After the round ups start? Too late by then.

      • Crusader for Christ

        “Persecution generally means attacking and labeling a group as problematic simply by their membership.”

        Already happening in Ye Olde England….

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129593/Heavy-handed-courts-persecuting-Christians-driving-underground-says-Carey.html

        The courts and prosecutors effectively shutting down any business that refuses business to gays based on religious grounds is persecution.
        I have Catholic friends that no longer say they are Catholic in public out of fear they will lose their job or be ostracized. They just say they are “spiritual, not religious.” That is not persecution how?

      • ericpinola

        Paul – do you own or have you ever built a successful business? How many tries did it take you? I have been on this roller coaster for YEARS, and have had feast and famine.

        IF some fool destroys MY CREATION, because I was STANDING up for MY moral beliefs; I would call that persecution. My response would be worth of confession though:) I’m a salt and burn type guy.

        • Paul McGuire

          I am currently working on building my law practice so yes. I wouldn’t suggest that it is persecution to require certain businesses to either provide services to same-sex weddings or shut down.

          Where do you draw the line? Is the religious objection going to be limited to serving same-sex weddings? What about serving same-sex married couples? What about committed same-sex couples that are not married?

          I don’t think the argument that a private business owner should have a right to discriminate against same-sex weddings is very strong. The public interest in preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation outweighs any individual objections regardless of whether they are based on sincerely held religious beliefs. I think ultimately that is where the courts will come down on this issue, just as the New Mexico Supreme Court did in the latest case.

          • ericpinola

            I wish you success in your law practice and am glad you stand by what you believe in. I agree the courts will more than likely agree with you. I as a free Catholic living in America will stand by my beliefs, even if they are against the law. We have other laws in this country that I do not agree with and choose to disobey. This is a nation where a mother is allowed and even encouraged to murder her child while in the womb. Sad times we are living in.

            Enjoy this day!

    • Adam__Baum

      If you insist on making specious anologies, at least use original ones. The phony comparison between sexual behavior and physical appearance was already tried by other posters, er I mean trolls.

  • Bob

    The major concern here is how two women couldn’t make their own wedding cake……

    Ahem……a little humor here, people……..

    • Valentin

      They probably spend to much time on their bikes to learn something like that.

  • Valentin

    It’s funny how we live in a supposedly free country and if we want to sell something in the open market we can’t decide who’s worthy of buying a product simply because it’s discrimination. But why is discrimination considered a bad thing when it means flowers for a real marriage rather than a celebration of two guys getting ready to abuse each other?

    • Athanasius De Angelus

      Oh yeah, SODOMY is sooooooo romantic. NOT!
      Purposely misusing the mechanism that can create the Body and Soul composite, is so romantic, NOT!
      Getting AIDS and STDs and HPV is so romantic. NOT!
      Corrupting the youth with the gay propaganda is so hip, so that children can develop mental disorder is so hip! NOT!

      • Valentin

        I don’t think you understand that I agree with you.

        • Athanasius De Angelus

          No, no I understand, I’m piggyback riding on you.

          • Valentin

            Well good.

    • Athanasius De Angelus

      Yeah I know, two fruit cakes sticking each other in the butt is called “MARRIAGE”?
      See, when I describe it in that way, no normal human can say that this is NORMAL.

      • Valentin

        Yeah anyone who actually looks at “gay marriage” or any sodomy at that realizes that it’s a waste of time and hospital visit. That is why we call it “gay”.

  • Tony

    We will lose a long tradition of civic freedom just because a small proportion of the population cannot or will not marry after the ordinary way of nature, AND insists upon dragooning everybody else into celebrating their perversions. I have sympathy for people who seek solace where they should not. I have no sympathy at all for people who would compel others to join them in celebrating it.

  • Pingback: Cardinal Arinze on the Role of the Laity - BigPulpit.com

  • Chip70

    Does anyone know if the bakery sold a cupcake to a person of Jewish faith? Or a cookie to a divorce man or woman? Or did they apply their “religious liberty” discriminatorily onto just the “sinners” that they picked?

    • Carl

      Homosexuals are the ones discriminating against those who believe their lifestyles are immoral by making it a sin against the new society which condones the practice. Chip70, when were you compelled to support heterosexual relationships or a religious denomination or practice against your will?

      And further, name the denomination that believes the Jewish faith is a sin, I believe in the Jewish Faith as a Christian, I just believe the Christian faith is God’s complete revelation!

      Divorce of and by itself is not a sin. The Church has always allowed divorce and its none of your business why your neighbor got a divorce.

      And as for the cupcake, cookie, if I sell them in the open public its a public accommodation that I sell them to whomever offers the set price. But you have no recourse to force me into a contract to make more items whether they be special order or not!

      • Tim

        True Carl. But offering to bake a cake in a generic catalog is equivalent to already having the item and putting it for sale to the public at a set price.

        A restaurant hasn’t cooked the dish yet when you order either. But if it is on the menu, it is already publicly for sale to whoever is willing to pay the sale price.

        • Athanasius De Angelus

          The baker has the right to refuse service. I’m sure you’ve read the sign: No shoes, no shirt, no service.

          • Tim

            It is arguable that no shirt or no shoes poses a risk to the business for hygiene reasons, as well as making other patrons uncomfortable. Selling someone a cake who comes in and picks it out of your catalogue is not similar.

            • Athanasius De Angelus

              Guess what genius, helping people celebrate sin is related to health reasons as well. Why don’t YOU use your brain before shooting off YOUR MOUTH?

              An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men [gays] and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse. – WebMD.com

              The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing. – WebMD.com

              • Valentin

                Not to mention Cholera, typhoid, and loads of other microbes that nest in our feces.

        • Valentin

          A baker has the right to decline his previous contract as long as the two parties did not already seal the deal.

    • guest

      The answer is no because they are not equivalent issues.

    • Athanasius De Angelus

      When gay marriage becomes the law of the land, you will have a consenting adult FREAK SHOW combinations (brother and sister, dad and son, uncle and nephew, etc.) that will never end. Oh yeah let’s just mess up the kids and go into the schools and promote sexual experimentations and sexual confusion so that STDs and AIDS will spread like wild fire!

      • Chip70

        ((Rolling eyes)) ok Athen… Come down off the doom and gloom mountain. Not one thing you listed has happened.. If it wasn’t for your well rehearsed, but very old lies – what would you all pin your gate of gays on?

  • Glenda Maye Abad

    It’s comforting to know that there are some Christians who still stand by their faith despite the enormous pressure of conforming. My heart goes out to these individuals. I support their cause.

    At the same time, I feel for the pain of the LGBT community. Years of thinking that they’ve been oppressed has driven them to such a reactive mentality; that the slightest offense warrants a court case. It’s a vicious cycle of hurt and getting back at people who they think hurt them.

    I hope one day they go beyond a reactive stance and graduate to a more accepting viewpoint of other beliefs. Even if it that belief is against their own. Nothing good comes out of justifying your point of the view at the expense of other people’s basic rights too. The cycle just have to stop.

    • Valentin

      The problem with your statement is that sodomy whether whether that be a boy and girl or boy and boy is not a right simply because it is wrong and a confusion and misplacement of desires by demonic spirits.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The contradiction at the heart of liberalism lies in its simultaneous assertion of popular sovereignty and universal human rights. In the brief interlude between the absolutist state of the Ancien Régime and modern totalitarian states, this was achieved by the separation of the public sphere of state activity and the private sphere of civil society. The state provided a legally codified order within which social customs, economic competition, religious beliefs, and so on, could be pursued without interference.

    But, when the social consensus on which the distinction rested breaks down, liberalism has no way of defining or defending the boundaries of this sphere; everything becomes potentially political.

    Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.” His solution is well known – whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.

  • liberalismisamentaldisorder

    the above quote is right “flee from sin”…and homosexual lifestyle is more than sin, it is an “abomination”

  • saltyasanocean

    Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. 14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

    • Bob

      Amen. We are the Church Militant, not the Church “squishy, wimpy, unclear.” Once someone knows the Truths of Christ, that person is to stand tall for that Truth and be a light to others. This is the building materials of sainthood.

  • Barbie

    Dear Jesus, please come take us now! Waiting for the Trumpet sound~

  • Amazed at the blindness

    Has anyone noticed that these responses resulted entirely BECAUSE GAYS WERE BEING PERSECUTED IN THE FIRST PLACE??????????

    • guest

      No, why would anyone conclude that?

    • Valentin

      First of all “Gays” is a term referring to irrational, prideful people who like to shove their genitals in each others rear ends. Why is keeping these filthy people away from the service you offer “persecution” as you put it?

  • markkrite

    It may very well be that we’re in the beginnings of a vicious chastisement where because in 1973 we the people let so-called “experts” in medicine, law, etc., dictate to us when human life began, resulting in Roe V. Wade, and the snuffing of some 60,000,000 UNREPEATABLE human innocents, in forty-plus years, we’re going to reap the whirlwind of suffering in the latest gambit of the “experts”, so-called “gay marriage” (oxymoron). There is the unmistakable whiff of “Non Serviam” in all this, because lucifer loves nothing better than chaos, confusion and division. All these will now result from the imposition of “same-sex marriage” just as happened in the legal imposition of Roe. Prayer,penance, sacrifice and the voting OUT of all the cretins in Congress and the W.H. will be positive steps towards ending these nightmares foisted upon American society. Will it happen, and the chastisement end? Only in God’s good time I suspect. GOD BLESS ALL.

  • Tim Creekmore

    The wife’s words about she thought we lived in a much more tolerant society signify that apparently she ahs nbo idea thaa persecution gays have taken from Catholics over the years. Franklly, how does the loss of a bakery compare to being burned alive for being gay?

    • guest

      Why such nonsense? What is tolerant about closing a bakery because you cannot get what you want? When did the Church burn “gays”?

    • Art Deco

      Who has been burned alive, Creekmore?

      • Tim Creekmore

        Are you that ignorant of history? Not worth the time for me to explain. Where do you think the term “faggot” came from?

        In a message dated 10/11/2013 12:09:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, notifications@disqus.net writes:

        (http://disqus.com/) _Settings _ (http://disqus.com/dashboard/#notifications) (http://disqus.com/dashboard/)

        A new comment was posted on _Crisis Magazine_ (http://redirect.disqus.com/url?impression=6e42fd6e-328f-11e3-bfcc-00259035e646&forum=1266975&thread=1841 838334&behavior=click&url=http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persecution -of-christians-the-latest-evidence#comment-1078952484:cs3MjEhVPkjEMJXuZnnGav 8VupA&post=1078952484&type=notification.post.registered&event=email)

        • Pay

          When did the church burn homosexuals. Proof please.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Cases of sodomy, both lay and clerical were added to the remit of the Roman Inquisition in 1451 and to that of Aragon in 1524.

            • Pay

              And when did the Church burn “gays”?

          • Tim Creekmore

            Perhaps you need to read up on the persecution of gays in the middle ages. Or by the Inquisition.
            Get out of the Bigot’s bubble and discover some real history.

            In a message dated 10/11/2013 4:36:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, notifications@disqus.net writes:

            (http://disqus.com/) _Settings _ (http://disqus.com/dashboard/#notifications) (http://disqus.com/dashboard/)

            A new comment was posted on _Crisis Magazine_ (http://redirect.disqus.com/url?impression=62fcd518-32b4-11e3-bc82-003048df93b0&forum=1266975&thread=1841 838334&behavior=click&url=http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persecution -of-christians-the-latest-evidence#comment-1079343742:Vbg21KLfDIrzokY-W6VMpq eDHYk&post=1079343742&type=notification.post.registered&event=email)

            • Pay

              Propagandists and bigots like you never have proof. Show us the proof.

              • Tim Creekmore

                In a message dated 10/12/2013 2:32:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, notifications@disqus.net writes:

                (http://disqus.com/) _Settings _ (http://disqus.com/dashboard/#notifications) (http://disqus.com/dashboard/)

                A new comment was posted on _Crisis Magazine_ (http://redirect.disqus.com/url?impression=a8177708-336c-11e3-a387-003048dfbae6&forum=1266975&thread=1841 838334&behavior=click&url=http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persecution -of-christians-the-latest-evidence#comment-1080198666:wiW7u4lB0TwZV7VSbKlkM3 3L2i4&post=1080198666&type=notification.post.registered&event=email)

                • Pay

                  Cry babies and immature teens want what they want and they will make up anything to try and get it.

                • Valentin

                  Offer an example you whiny little boy.

              • Tim Creekmore

                narrow minded. closed minded no nothings like you would never believe the truth anyway. I know whereof I speak.

                In a message dated 10/12/2013 2:32:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, notifications@disqus.net writes:

                (http://disqus.com/) _Settings _ (http://disqus.com/dashboard/#notifications) (http://disqus.com/dashboard/)

                A new comment was posted on _Crisis Magazine_ (http://redirect.disqus.com/url?impression=a8177708-336c-11e3-a387-003048dfbae6&forum=1266975&thread=1841 838334&behavior=click&url=http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persecution -of-christians-the-latest-evidence#comment-1080198666:wiW7u4lB0TwZV7VSbKlkM3 3L2i4&post=1080198666&type=notification.post.registered&event=email)

                • Pay

                  You are lying.

                • Athanasius De Angelus

                  Tim,

                  YOUR TRUTH is to spread death, destruction and illnesses. The proof are in the statistics CLOWN Boy.

                  An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men [gays] and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse. – WebMD.com

                  The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing. – WebMD.com

        • Art Deco

          Creekmore, the last execution by burning consequent to a verdict in an Anglo-American court was in 1792 or thereabouts. I cannot recall what the offense was.

          The portfolio of crimes punished with execution used to be quite extensive. Executions, enslavement, terms of indenture, pillory-and-stocks, branding, exile to Australia &c. are the sorts of things you see in societies without prisons.

        • Valentin

          Faggot comes from multiple guys playing with each others sticks.

          • Tim Creekmore

            Actually the derisive term for Gays “faggot” comes form the practice of burning gay men on the fires used for witches. They were bundled with wood sticks (bundles of sticks is the base meaning of “faggot) and thrown on the fires alive.
            I don’t expect no-nothiings like you to have this kind of information as you would never accept information contrary to your bigotry.

            In a message dated 10/12/2013 6:58:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, notifications@disqus.net writes:

            (http://disqus.com/) _Settings _ (http://disqus.com/dashboard/#notifications) (http://disqus.com/dashboard/)

            A new comment was posted on _Crisis Magazine_ (http://redirect.disqus.com/url?impression=c120fa1a-3391-11e3-a0d6-00259034104e&forum=1266975&thread=1841 838334&behavior=click&url=http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persecution -of-christians-the-latest-evidence#comment-1080396147:69HGu080nNMjhkSXH_ZJll slGqg&post=1080396147&type=notification.post.registered&event=email)

            • Valentin

              If I am such a “no-nothing” than give an example rather constantly calling me stupid without giving me a reason to believe you.

            • Valentin

              Give an example.

    • Jean

      Catholics have not persecuted gays in the past. That is a lie. Sure, there may be a bully here or there that has harassed a gay person, but it is not ‘Catholics’, as though every Catholic is out there bashing gays. Bold face lie.

    • Art Deco

      That is just anachronistic. Public discussion of and interest in homosexuality prior to 1950 was minimal. It was rare prior to 1969 for homosexuals to make a public point of their off stage activities. It was not until around 1993 that it was something most people encountered outside the newspapers if they were not looking for it or resident in select neighborhoods.

      You appear to expect us to adopt the sort of prism vociferous homosexuals do when they chatter that they were ‘oppressed’ by common manners and community mores which made for reticence about sexual topics. Nothing doin’.

  • Pingback: Gay persecution of Christians: The latest evidence... - Christian Forums

  • Jonathan

    If the conveners are free to reject clients, then clients are free to petition. Tolerance from both sides are necessary. No gays served here…reminiscent of blacks only or whites only in South Africa. Both are reacting according to their conscience. At the end of the day it is just as easy to find another cake shop or to provide the service. On cannot be held morally responsible for providing goods. This is the sin of commission taken to an interesting end. According to this principle those who should not be served include: fornicators, adulterers (ironic since most do this before marriage anyway-no cake for you!), idolators (no cake for pagan’s etc), those who are effeminate, homosexuals, theives, those who covet, drunkards, railers, extortioners (1 Cor 6:9). How much business will be done in the end? This is a difficult question and I do not know the correct answer…

    • Guest

      This is mis-characterized. It is not about arbitrarily not selling to generic sinners. It is a conscience issue.

      • Adam__Baum

        To be “white” or “black” is to have a morally neutral physical attribute. “Gay” is idea that a person is defined in totality by a behavioral predilection, that it is innate and immutable and that is a lie.
        Among my many prior lives, was a stint as a fiscal part of a state correctional system. Thre was a phrase used there “gay for the stay”.

    • Art Deco

      No gays served here…reminiscent of blacks only or whites only in South Africa.

      No it is not. Prior to 1985, various sorts of segregation in commercial activity were required by law. Even after that date, you required a permit to run an open access business.

      • Jean

        Art the bakers did not say ‘no gays served here’ and in fact, one of the businesses had routinely served the gay couple in the past. They are refusing to serve at a marriage ceremony of the couple because they believe the ceremony is immoral and they cannot participate in the immorality. We cannot accept the notion that our government can compel its citizens to commit acts deemed immoral by the citizen. This is what communism does. This is not freedom. Do you want government compulsion or do you want freedom? You cannot have both.

        • Art Deco

          Why are you replying to a post of mine on the subject of the differences between freedom of contract and South African law prior to 1995?

          I have been tangling with “tim” for too many hours arguing for freedom of contract and freedom of association. I am not sure why you fancy you have some sort of dispute with me.

          • Jean

            uh……because I made a mistake, that is why. I thought you were making the statement in italics above when you were quoting someone else. So sorry.

    • Valentin

      Blacks are born as Blacks where as Gays become Gay by acting Gay. Big difference plus Gays are inherently perverts by doing Gay things.

  • Tony

    The acceptance of sodomy implies, a fortiori, the acceptance of the premise that all consensual sexual activity between (or among!) adults is morally permissible. This, the principle of the sexual revolution, this laissez-foutre “philosophy,” is responsible for untold human misery, as any visit to a prison, an inner city or poor rural school, or the waiting room of a psychiatrist’s office will show. And then there is the general social collapse, which will bankrupt us monetarily as it has already bankrupted us culturally. The Church will be seen as prescient, not because she is, but because she stands her ground while everybody else goes quite mad.
    On the subject of conscience: we need to concentrate upon moral law as law. It is not that, if I were a baker, I should prefer not to bake a cake celebrating Floozie May’s debut as a porn star. It is that I may not bake that cake; it is not permitted to me; I must obey even when I’d like to duck and shrug and go along with the cloacal tide. That’s not the same as refusing to make a grilled cheese sandwich to a sinner — we are all sinners. If the KKK came and asked me to sew their white robes, I must not do that — I must obey God and not man. If a member of the KKK asked me to launder his shirts, that is another matter, since he is asking me to do that as a fellow man, and I am not being asked to participate in his sins.

  • Paul McGuire

    How is it that The First Amendment is wonderful when it protects your rights but not so much when it protects the rights of those who would start petitions against religious bakers who they believe discriminate against same-sex couples?

    In about half of the cases described here, no government official is attempting to force the owners to cater to same-sex couples. The couple in question decides to use the power of social media instead to spread the word that a certain bakery has a problem with same-sex marriage. Personally, I think this is the preferred response because the marketplace of ideas should be used to help consumers make better informed choices.

    Those who agree with these shop owners’ beliefs and applaud them for standing up for what they believe can rally behind these shop owners and buy their cakes. Those who find their behavior deplorable can shop elsewhere so that we don’t need to have more objections occur. Wouldn’t it be better if the same-sex couples knew which shops to patronize ahead of time?

    • Athanasius De Angelus

      “In about half of the cases described here, no government official is attempting to force the owners to cater to same-sex couples.”

      Well then we have the OTHER ‘half’ of the government official who will use their power to ‘force the owners to cater to same-sex couples.’ GUESS WHAT?
      This isn’t comforting.

      “Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado: Owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in July. The Lakewood bakery has faced at least two protests, a Facebook-driven boycott, and a discrimination complaint from the STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.”

      How about the person’s right to not being FORCE to go against their religious belief? How about the parents’ right to not being FORCE to sent their child to a school that celebrate SODOMY?

      Liberals never play fair!

    • Uuncle Max

      “Wouldn’t it be better if the same-sex couples knew which shops to patronize ahead of time?”

      Fair question

      Let me answer it with a question.

      In the instances cited – how many times do you think that the same sex couples went into a business and were told that the business owners did not want to photograph them, make cookies for them, rent halls to them, etc. and were actually surprised to find this out? I would argue that in most of these instances the ss couples actually provoked these confrontations in order to make life hell for the business that didn’t want to do business with them – the maximum being of course putting them out of business and scaring any other businesses at the same time. Surely in the gay communities in these towns there is some sort of listing of what businesses are gay friendly, which of course implies that those who are not on the list are there for the picking on.

      Am I saying that there is a concerted effort by the gay community to intimidate businesses that because of their religious beliefs don’t want to do business with them?

      Yes.

      • Paul McGuire

        Well in the case of the Washington Florist the couple specifically knew the florist and had been patronizing that business for years. The florist knew that the two men were in a relationship and benefited when they bought flowers for each other at key points of their relationship. Yet somehow this was not considered problematic by the florist until the couple attempted to get married. In this case I’d say the gay men were a bit surprised to find out the florist was not willing to do their wedding. Further, I expect they were more hurt by the refusal than the typical case because of the relationship they had built up over the years.

        I for one would not intentionally provoke a business into such a response. I expect the majority of people in the planning stages for a wedding wouldn’t intentionally do so either. Unless you have some evidence that the people in these cases did know about the stance of the business owner and chose to ask them anyway it seems more reasonable to assume it wasn’t known.

        • Carl

          Hurt feelings now are to be litigated? WOW
          I can only imagine the number of Florists in Washington who would have accept the business.

  • Gabriella

    Gay unions cannot be called a marriage because their union can never be consummated. Even a marriage between two heterosexuals cannot be called a marriage if their union never consummate – therefore, gays can scream and kick like a dying horse, but their union can never be called a marriage – hence, the people who have been hurt by them
    cannot be ‘punished’, there is no reason.

    • Arsenine

      Gabriella, words are just words. You may think that they can never be “the same thing” as a consummated heterosexual union (and I’d agree). But saying they can never be “called” “marriage” is to fundamentally misunderstand the merely conventional nature of language.

      • Pay

        Marriage by definition implies only male and female. To arbitrarily redefine the word to please some propaganda group is to deny reality.

      • Valentin

        Words are there for us to describe reality and it’s no mistake that God gave us language as well as the teaching that lying is wrong.

  • Gabriella

    Paul, you are absolutely right. Have they not been supported, and just ignored, they would not have had any reason to start screaming and kicking. But, the lemmings in our society have exercised their political correctness and thus, got us all into this mess.
    The government reflects the will and the mentality of the people!

  • Lily

    You may not agree but while gays are minority the astounding amount of women who support them makes their agenda a majority. Women are so naive (or stupid) to support this thing (I am a woman) it is unbelievable. If they stopped this folish behaviour and stopped to support they gay agenda, this would end. Just think how hairdressers, tv hosts, stylists, actors, soap opera writers, whoever, would feel tomorrow morning if they found out no woman is on their side?

  • joxxer

    A business owner LOGICALLY should have a right to serve who he or she wishes, but no longer does that apply in America, soon to be known as the land where the pervert rules by intimidation.

  • Richard Winger

    Back in the 1960’s, there was a growing church in the U.S. called the Black Muslims. Their theology taught that while people had been made by the devil. I never knew any members of this church, but at the time a typical Black Muslim with a business probably would have wanted to refuse to serve white people. Of course, one wonders what white person would have wanted to patronize a Black Muslim-owned business.

    Ever since 1964, it has been illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of religion as well as on the basis of race. Who among us would repeal that 1964 civil rights law? How would you feel if you tried to stay at a bed-and-breakfast and the owner noticed a Christian symbol on your auto, and said, “Sorry, we don’t serve Christians.”

    I do realize, though, that there is a difference between a bakery saying “we don’t serve gays” and a bakery that says “we won’t bake cakes for same-sex ceremonies.” I am sorry that the instances discussed in this article turned out as they did; I think the judges were mistaken not to make the logical distinction between refusing all service to an individual based on that individual’s sexual orientation, versus refusing to provide services to a same-sex ceremony.

    • Tim

      Yes, you’re right. It makes much more sense if a hotel owner cannot refuse a room merely because you “are” Christian, but only if you plan to “enact” your Christianity by praying or reading your Bible in the room.

      I’m being sarcastic of course, but that’s the analogy that would work here…

      • Pay

        Why compare a 2000 year old religion compatible with democracy and deviant behavior condemned from the start of time?

        • Pupienus

          “deviant behavior condemned from the start of time?”

          No. Just no.

          • Pay

            Just denying it does not change it.

            • Pupienus

              You saying it doesn’t make it true. The facts are on my side, sunshine, as you would know if you ever bothered to read any actual history instead of relying on what your pastor told your magicall book says (I’m betting you haven’t actually read that book, amirite?).

              • Pay

                The facts reveal your position is a fraud. We can put all you know about the faith on the back of a postage stamp. Do you really think your silly propaganda works here ?

      • guest

        That is not analogous at all. It would be like asking a Jew to decorate a cake with a death camp on it to celebrate extermination of people.

    • Valentin

      I would repeal it simply because I don’t trust a “Black Muslim” to give me a good service any way (I am White German and Catholic), plus the 1964 act does not distinguish between What we have from the Son of God and whatever strange person and demon came up with the Black Muslim Church.

  • Pingback: Persecution of Christians who disagree with same-sex marriage is one the rise | For Christ and the Church

  • WarWeasle

    By your logic I can refuse to serve you because you are straight!

    • Pay

      You and your pals may want to learn to read and think more critically before drawing any more erroneous conclusions.

    • Valentin

      No by our logic a Baker is right to refuse to give a cake to a gay celebration which is far from supporting something decent and worthy of delicious cake.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      Yes, WarWeasle, that is correct. It’s called being a freeman.

    • Pupienus

      No, that would be discrininating based on sexual orientation.

  • ross hoffman

    What a bunch of hogwash! These “Christians?” lit the fuse with holier than thou actions.

    • Pay

      The fuse was lit by narcissistic emotionally immature “couple” demanding the entire world bow to their demands.

      • Pupienus

        “The fuse was lit by narcissistic emotionally immature Christian supremacists demanding the entire world bow to their demands, the law doesn’t apply to them.”

        FTFY

        • guest

          Christians obey just laws. They do not obey unjust laws. You would have made a good slave owner.

  • Pupienus

    Had any of those places simply refused the business they would be fine. It’s because they verbally assailed the prospective customers, telling them exactly why they wouldn’t take their icky gay money. Apparently their religious convictions include making everyone else live accordting to them.

    • Valentin

      Are you claiming that it is wrong to tell a pervert that they are a pervert?

      • Carl

        I’m working off the Merriam-Webster definition of “pervert,” and yes, when all the dominoes have fallen the term pervert will be a causal description at best, or a new virtue at worst.

        History of Sexual Perversion:
        Contraception
        Pre-marital sex
        No fault divorce
        Co-habitation
        Abortion
        Sodomy
        SSM

        What’s next, Weddings with three or more people
        I could continue the list but it’s too perverted to type on a comment thread in 2013.

      • Pupienus

        Not at all. You can say almost anything you like, just stay within the limits onspeech set by the Supreme Court. You seem to have completelymjssed the point, that being they acted illegally not in saying that stuff but in refusing service.

        Now watch me call a delusional bigoted idiot a delusional bigoted idiot.

        • Valentin

          Would you care to explain why you are calling me a delusional bigoted idiot? Your statement implies that supreme court is who we should follow even if that means abandoning what is right and siding with and supporting something as useless and harmful as “gay marriage”.

        • guest

          Your god seems to be unjust laws. Nice.

    • Carl

      Pupienus,
      How do you figure, Christians are the ones being forced out of the business of adoption, weddings, rental properties, photography, baking. Where does it end?

      I don’t believe every place tried to verbally assail every homosexual customer, if any, and really, none of those homosexuals flaunted their lifestyles towards the business owners. Really?

      I didn’t study any of these cases but common sense says I don’t have to. Is this really about buying a cake, getting photographs, adoption, or any other business practice. If you say it is you are lying big time.

      Its all about advancing a new vision of culture while silencing all others, this has nothing to do with fairness or what is right.

      Radical Homosexual Taliban

      • Pupienus

        They aren’t being forced out. All their troubles are due to their insistence that ther law doesn’t apply to them. They are quite wrong. Not only has the SCOTUS said so, there’s that whole “render unto Caesar” bit that you lot keep omitting mention of.

        “flaunted their lifestyles towards” HAHAHAHAHA Aren’t you precious!

        “I didn’t study any of these cases” Then your opinion is worth jack-shit. “I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FACTS ARE BUT THAT WON’T STOP ME FROM SPEWING MY BIGOTRY!!”

        >Its all about advancing a new vision of culture while silencing all others

        “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6″But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

        • carl

          Careful your shouting anger is making your turban fall off.

        • Carl

          >Show me one case where homosexual nuptials couldn’t get a cake made for their wedding. Not one of these cases occurred in a one bakery town. LOL
          >If I refuse to bake for a strip club or stripper they would have no supreme court case against me—there are plenty of examples like this.
          >In fact, if you presented yourself as Pupienus in my Bakery establishment, I would refuse to sell any of my products to you based upon your obnoxious words, and you would have no legal recourse.

          • Pupienus

            “Show me one case where homosexual nuptials couldn’t get a cake made for their wedding.”

            Irrelevant.

            “If I refuse to bake for a strip club or stripper they would have no supreme court case against me—there are plenty of examples like this.”

            For once you’ve said something correct. It’s not illegal to discriminate on those bases. It IS illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Once again, those places wouldn’t have been in trouble if they hadn’t told the couples the why of their refusal of service. But let’s take it on step further. Can they legally refuse to serve Jews? Can they legally refuse to serve someone from a Christian denomination that endorses same sex marriage? Why. the religious intolerance is flying!

            “In fact, if you presented yourself as Pupienus in my Bakery establishment, I would refuse to sell any of my products to you based upon your obnoxious words, and you would have no legal recourse.”

            True again. It’s not illegal to discriminate in that way. It IS illegal to dsicriminate on race or ethnicity, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation…

            What makes my words obnoxious? Are you troubled by facts?

        • guest

          Unjust laws are no laws. No one is bound to obey an unjust law, in fact we are bound to oppose them. You may want to learn the faith before opposing it.

          • Pupienus

            “Unjust laws are no laws. No one is bound to obey an unjust law, in fact we are bound to oppose them.”

            Said every traitor ever.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      That would be called “Freedom of Speech”, Pupienus.
      And, it’s also protected by the First Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
      You do not have a right to not hear views with which you disagree. Sorry.

      • Pupienus

        Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is the cliche example. So your first sentence is FAIL.

        The first amendment protects the people from _government_ intrusion. As the courst have determined that there are limits in speech, you’rv crafted another FAIL.

        All of which misses the point. They have every right to express their views EXCEPT when denying service to a protected class of people. Eventhen, they have the righjt to say what they want. They are being sued not because they expressed their views but because they DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL. What they did that was illegal was NOT saying those things except in as much as they INSISTED on telling the couple they were going to break the law. Had they not said anything about WHY they were refusing service there would be no case. They could have said “we don’t like the way you look” and refused the business and there would be no case.

        Had they told an interracial couple they wouldn’t service them because of their religious views (which was the Christianists stance not that long ago) they would be acting illegally. Had they said “we don’t serve Jews” they would be acting illegally. Are they acting illegally in saying those things? No. The illegal action is refusing service BECAUSE they hold those views.

        They are free to practice their religion in whatever way they feel fit,. What they can’t do is force anyone else to live according to those views, nor claim a religiius exemption from the law. Render unto Caesar, Nick, remember that part?

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          Your rant is nonsensical and incoherent, Pupienus.
          By the way, where did you get your law degree, Matlock? A box of Cracker-Jack?
          I’ll pray for you.
          God Bless!

          • Pupienus

            “By the way, where did you get your law degree, Matlock?”

            Lewis & Clark College.

            “I’ll pray for you.”

            HAHAHAHAHA That’s like telling a hippie you’re going to punch him in the aura. HAHAHAHAAH

            • Nick_from_Detroit

              Apparently, they didn’t teach English at Lewis & Clark, eh, Pupienus?
              Isn’t that a prerequisite for a law degree?

              • Pupienus

                Typical sky fairy addict. No substantive response, just name calling and insults. When you graduate from high school you’ll find that won’t get you far in the real world.

                • Nick_from_Detroit

                  Typical anti-Catholic bigot.
                  Write something comprehensible, and I’ll be glad to respond.

                • guest

                  Your usual bigoted agitprop.

                • Athanasius De Angelus

                  Typical “random mutation” clown addict that you are. Why don’t you pray to the god of “random mutation” and ask it to reveal to you the locations of the transitional species? Well where the heck are they????

                  • Pupienus

                    Silly believer in magic. Prayer is just talking to yourself. As for the other question, EVERY species is a transitional species. You clearly do not understand evolution.

                    • Athanasius De Angelus

                      CLOWN, why don’t you learn about the term “transitional species” as it was postulated by Darwin, instead of making up some nonsense in your own CLOWN brain. Don’t change the definition loser. So are we going to become “Q” like the guy in Star Trek, answer me LOSER? Learn about evolution, troll, since this is your clown religion. Here is a definition for you according to DARWIN:

                      “In 1859, when Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”, but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” – Wikipedia

                      “Ye worship ye know not what.” – John 4:22

                    • Pupienus

                      “LOWN, why don’t you learn about the term “transitional species” as it was postulated by Darwin”

                      I see. The theory proposed by Darwin HAS NEVER BEEN REFINED OR ADDED TO OR AMENDED DESPITE 150 YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION!

                      Also, “perceived lack.” Twatwaffle.

                    • Athanasius De Angelus

                      Freak show you said: “EVERY species is a transitional species.”

                      So I said are we going to become “Q” in Star Trek? YOU’RE an IDIOT, you don’t even know about Darwin’s “theory”.

                      What about the fossils???? Why don’t you get an education, clown?

                      “It’s hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have FAILED miserably….Meyer[‘s Darwin’s Doubt] describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer.” (Dr. Mark Menamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of The Emergence of Animals)

                      You don’t know science nor do you know about religion, you’re just some clown with a stupid meaningless existence pretending to know something, and SHOOTING OFF your big fat mouth!

                    • Pupienus

                      “So I said are we going to become “Q” in Star Trek?”

                      Thereby proving that you do not understand evolution. Not. At. All.

                      I’ll admit to not knowing who or what the hell ‘Q” is becuase I’ve never watched that crap. I stopped watching TV in 1974 in favor of reading books. You should try reading a book sometime, it would do you good.

                      “So I said are we going to become “Q””

                      Say, that’s a nice straw man you’ve got there! I recommend you start with a book on rhetoric and logic.

                      Ahhh, Mark McMenamin (NOT “Menamin,” idiot). ID adherent. Don’t I recall him publishing a paper on “Cannibalistic bahavior of agnostid trilobytes?” Some shales slabs, with trilobytes, and THER WERE CLOSE TOGETHER AND OPN TOP OF EACH OTHER PROOF!!!!!

                      He also said said he found a kraken from the Mesozoic. Said kraken Giant Icythyosaurs arranged the bones of its giant ichthyosaur victims into self-portraits.

                      He said he had evidence for alien visitations some time during Earth’s history. The evidence for that is some sort of round rock that he keeps seeing.

                      He claimed mind contorl in the fossil record between a couple worms. His evidence was a misinterpretation of a previously explained series of scours on a bedding plane, that aren’t even fossils.

                      Not someone I’d be citing if I had any self respect, which I do and you apparently do not.

                    • Athanasius De Angelus

                      You are the one who is ugly, angry and stupid. You don’t even know the theory of evolution, saying that we ‘are all transitional species.’

                      You’re an idiot!

                      AND WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS, TROLL?

                      IDIOT, WHY DON’T YOU try reading sometimes. Read up on your stupid “theory” since YOUR THEORY is being demolished by the scientific community right NOW! CLOWN – do you know how to read, clown? HERE I’M RECOMMENDING A BOOK FOR YOU TO READ, YOU UNEDUCATED FOOL!:

                      “It’s hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have FAILED MISERABLY….Meyer[‘s Darwin’s Doubt] describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer.” (Dr. Mark Menamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of The Emergence of Animals)

                    • Pupienus

                      Did he or did he not make those claims?

                    • Athanasius De Angelus

                      You show me the citation CLOWN!
                      Well show it to me! Show me your source fool!

                    • Pupienus

                      cannibal trilobytes: https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2010AM/finalprogram/abstract_179101.htm

                      Kraken: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111011-kraken-sea-monster-ichthyosaurs-science/

                      http://thepseudonewsproject.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/the-kraken-sleeps-on/

                      Pseudo-science. McMenamin is only speculating, working from circumstantial – and of questionable interpretation – evidence. Note that he hasn’t published any of his whacko “theories” in any peer reviewed journal. Why is that? It’s because he’s a lone whack crying in the wilderness.

                    • Athanasius De Angelus

                      Who cares how about these biologists that say that Darwin was quack???????

                      (Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research)

                      (Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center)

            • Art Deco

              Lewis & Clark College

              Alma mater of Monica Lewinsky.

          • bworei

            And of course we believe him that he has a law degree because, well, he told us he does, right?! LOL!

  • Carl

    Unintended consequences of the do gooders and intended consequences by the radical left—homosexuality being made the new protected class.

    Public accommodation laws based on age, race, religion, disability, national origin, served the common good. Discrimination is not a vice, in fact it’s a natural human right. But humans have the basic right to access necessities as food, shelter, and water. So Discrimination is not absolute.

    Tolerance is not absolute either, if it were, there would be no room for right or wrong, no definition possible of a healthy society or unhealthy society. In fact, this is where we are going as a society.

    Homosexuals being a protected class must be repealed and replaced with a basic public accommodation law requiring no one from being restricted from basic necessities.

    • Carl

      No one should be restricted from or discriminated against basic business transactions offered to the general public. Don’t ask don’t tell sales.

    • Pluto Animus

      You’re filled with hatred for gay people.

      Obviously, you’re a Christian.

      • guest

        Truth is hate to those who gate truth. The word hate is thrown around by you propagandists as a tool. It is demonic.

      • Bob

        You’re filled with hatred for Christians.

        Obviously, your an atheist.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      Carl,

      In a “free society” an individual should be able to discriminate against whomever they please, for whatever reason. Whether that reason is good or unjust. It wasn’t the federal or state government’s right to decide what was “good” discrimination by individuals, and, what was bad.
      It is the government that should be prohibited from discriminating against it’s citizens. Individuals should be allowed to contract for goods and services freely, without government interference.
      God Bless!

  • pdxprogressiveX

    50 years ago the same sort of bigoted and narrow minded “Christians” were refusing to serve interracial couples.
    The bottom line is that if you run a business open to the public you are not allowed to discriminate against any class of people, be they African Americans, Conservative Christians, or members of the LGBT community.

    • Pay

      Is it possible supporting deviant sexual ideologies make people unable to think rationally and read critically? Your assertion is not based in any fact connected to this essay. Not surprised at all btw.

      • Pluto Animus

        “Sexual ideologies”? What in the world are those?

        Typical brain dead Christian twit.

        • Pay

          Hedonists only want what they want. Like immature children. Part of the syndrome. Nothing new here.

          • Hope Childress Neudert

            How are two people who love each other and want to marry hedonists? IF you want to flee from sin then it’s probably NOT a good idea to open a business where you have to serve sinners. If Christians decided not to serve sinners then they wouldn’t have any business would they? I wonder if they make cakes for people who have been divorced and remarry? The sad thing is intolerant people will always hide behind religion. I find it strange that Christians have made the issue of denying gay people equal rights their pet project when the bible barely mentions it and Jesus never does. Oddly he does mention divorce. Oh and the love of money as well. People stand against intolerance and religious views they don’t agree with and Christians cry persecution. Christians are a HUGE majority and usually are the ones doing the persecution. No one is making Christians marry a person of the same sex. They should treat it no different than the fact a divorced person can remarry.

            • Nick_from_Detroit

              “Christians have made the issue of denying gay people equal rights their pet project when the bible barely mentions it and Jesus never does.”

              Christ most certainly mentions it, in Matthew 19:4-6, HCN.
              [Christ] answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

              Homosexuals are not being denied “equal rights”, by the way. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
              God Bless!

              • bworei

                Welcome back, Nick! Haven’t seen you around in a while. Representing yourself well, as always!

                • Nick_from_Detroit

                  Thanks, so much, Bworei.
                  I post comments at several sites, and sometimes get stuck in a rut, sticking with one site for several weeks.
                  I come to many Catholic sites based on articles posted on NewAdvent.com, so, I can get preoccupied with many different blogposts. New Advent brought me here, for instance.
                  Hope to see you around the interwebs, soon.
                  God Bless!

            • guest

              It is hedonistic because it is simply a base desire some want fulfilled. It is not based in the good of the other or one’s self. It is selfish and pathologic.

              Just because too many have hard hearts and dulled consciences does not change the objective truth of the matter.

        • Bob

          “Deviant sexual ideologies:” one man having anal sex with another man. Questions?

          And man having anal “sex” with another man is not sex. It’s one man helping another man to masterbate.

        • Athanasius De Angelus

          Yeah, let’s just call “getting off in the ass” by two guys A MARRIAGE.
          You’re the one who is brain dead and SICK!

    • carl

      False, it is legal to discriminate against (I can refuse to sell a cake to a):
      * Conservative
      * Liberal
      * Someone under the age of forty
      * Pornographer
      * Porn Star (one was just fired)
      * Strip Club owner
      * Stripper
      * Fat person
      * Dumb person
      * Smart person
      * Blonde person
      * Blue eyes

  • Prof_Override

    Let’s see … thousands of years of brutal bigotry hiding behind the skirts of hateful theology (isn’t there a couple of parts about loving thy brother … Hmmmm) and now all of a sudden christians (small “c” intended) are persecuted. I’m not sure whether to laugh or to cry, but either way this is pathetic.

    • Pay

      Let us see… The usual agitprop, lies, and political moves. Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

  • nbritt58

    The problem here is not just the gay activists, but the slavish and cowardly attitude of politicians, the legal system, local government, etc… The result is that a small minority (the LGBT movement) have gained disproportiante power and influence (for the moment). But what happens to that power and influence when those state organs, corrupt as they now are, collapse because they are no longer fit for purpose?

    • scottrose

      That “disproportionate” power argument against gays is just like the one that antisemites use against Jews.

  • JammieDodger

    “I guess in my mind I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.”

    That’s just priceless. Everyone is supposed to tolerate your intolerance.

  • Nathalie

    It’s so sad how incredibly naive you religious people are. You think that LGBT have a choice? You think this is something that they can change? I mean truthfully there are a lot of you in the church that are GAY AS HELL and don’t have the balls to come out and admit because you live YOUR LIFE in fear of the church. I feel far more sorry for those people than these LGBT who are TRUE to themselves. This whole article is BS and not spoken from the truth. I AM A STRAIGHT WOMAN AND I SUPPORT THE LGBT COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY ARE MY SISTERS, BROTHERS, MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND I LOVE ALL HUMAN BEINGS EQUALLY NOT UNDER ANY PREDETERMINED JUDGEMENT BY “GOD”.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      I’m sorry that you feel such hurt in your life, Nathalie. Your anger will not bring you peace. Only the love of our Savior and Lord, Christ Jesus, can do that.
      I’ll say a prayer for you.
      God Bless!

    • Valentin

      No is born “Gay” just as no one is born having sex with their wife.

    • guest

      What an illogical, facile, and overly emotional logic you use. I “feel” sorry for you and those that cannot reason in a rational way. It is all about illegitimate feelings with you.

      • Keith Babberney

        what, exactly, makes a feeling “illegitimate?”

        • april

          Well ya know, misusing your sexual organs and then ejaculating the seed of life into the ass where feces are is DISGUSTING. But Keith wants to promote this???? This is disturbing!

    • Bob

      Sin is still sin.

      Sodomy is immoral, a sin against God and nature….always has been, always will be.

      • Keith Babberney

        My bible says it is a sin to pass judgment on others. I guess I can’t work for you.

        • april

          Which bible is that? Anton LaVey’s Satanic Bible?

          You need to read the real Bible. Here’s a verse for you liberal troll on the right to condemn sin:

          “He who persists in sin, REBUKE HIM in the presence of all.” – 1 Timothy 5:20

          But a fake christian like Keith wouldn’t read the Bible, he’ll pick up LaVey’s Satanic Bible to read instead! What clown your are Keith!
          Real dense too!

  • Mork

    This is ludicrous, protecting the rights of minorities (such as gays) and keeping the majority (christians) from OPPRESSING them is not infringing on your rights. It’s keeping you from infringing on OTHER PEOPLE’S RIGHTS.

    Bottom line, being a american doesn’t give you the right to be a bigoted bully. Get over it and stop bullying. I know many of you don’t see it as bullying, but the law does. We live in a constitutional republic people. Not a democracy. And the point of a constitutional republic to use a analogy is: When 2 wolves and a sheep get together to decide what’s for dinner, the constitution ensures that what’s for dinner ISN’T THE SHEEP.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      Mork,
      How is refusing to make a cake for a lesbian counterfeit marriage, or, refusing to take pictures at one, “OPPRESSING” the “gay” minority by the Christian majority?
      In a constitutional republic, individuals are able to freely enter into contracts with other individuals, or not.
      Forcing someone to perform a service for another, against his wishes, is called slavery, Mork. Or, tyranny.
      God Bless!

      • scottrose

        The LDS Church stopped discriminating against black people after President Carter told them that if they didn’t, they were going to lose their tax-exempt status.

      • Keith Babberney

        They haven’t been forced to provide the service. They have been penalized by rational members of society for their bigotry. Free market, supply-and-demand, all that.

    • Carl

      Civil unions weren’t good enough, special title class under public accommodations laws weren’t good enough, the marriage title wasn’t good enough, now you want to oppress people of faith by either forcing them out of business or make us participate in what we believe is morally wrong.

      Who’s being oppressed? Really?

      • Keith Babberney

        You can stay in business as long as you have customers. Unfortunately for you, we customers are no longer willing to support your bigotry, so you are wedging yourself into an ever-shrinking niche. Your choice, not ours. Don’t claim the natural consequences of your actions are oppression.

    • guest

      Deviant behavior is not a neutral minority. To create this bizarre class of persons based on sexual desires is immoral, illogical, and caters to societies ills.

      • Keith Babberney

        They were just people until Christian society singled them out as a group and began crusading against them. So, if your statement is true, it is Christians who deserve the blame.

  • Pingback: The Reluctant Theologian – Coming Out as Holy Ground

  • SammySeattle

    Victims of their own bigotry.

    • jar

      Victims of the bigotry by the homofascists.

    • Athanasius De Angelus

      Yeah, just use the term “bigotry” over and over again without any reasonable arguments behind it. Yeah, let’s just call two men sodomizing each other a marriage. Yeah let’s misuse the sexual organs that God created and contract AIDS, STDS and HPV. Typical brain-dead liberal/materialist clone coming from Sammy.

      • Keith Babberney

        Advocating for discrimination against a certain group of sinners while ignoring the sins of everyone else based on one’s personal bias is bigotry. How much of an argument do you need? It’s textbook.

        • Athanasius De Angelus

          If you admit that SODOMY is a sin then this Sin should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage! The SIN of SODOMY should not be introduce in schools so that kids can be corrupted with sexual experimentations and sexual confusions.
          YOU ADMITTED THAT SODOMY IS A SIN, SO WHY DO YOU WANT THE SOCIETY TO GO EVEN DEEPER INTO HELL?
          Keith, you are a brain dead, liberal clown!

          • Keith Babberney

            I don’t think sodomy is a sin; I was referring to your thought process.

            But now I see that your thought process goes from baking a cake for a wedding to sex in the schools in two quick steps. I don’t think it’s possible to reason with that. Another hallmark of bigotry.

            • John200

              Sodomy is a sin, never doubt it. It will take quite a while for you to admit it, I suppose. In the meantime, …

              Troll on, brother.

            • april

              No keith, you’re the dense clown. The gay agenda will be promoted in schools so that kids will get sick from AIDS, STDs and HPV. You’re just a radical homo mafia, promoting the gay ” G.A.Y – Got Aids Yet?” life style. Keith why do want to promote illnesses? Are you that sick?

  • Ellen Chmiel

    Since homosexuality is intrinsic, it is God-given. Since animals have instincts and not reason, why are so many same-sex? Check out the albatross and “Irrational Exuberance”
    Gay men living next door did not impact us at all. It’s not violation of faith since no one is forced to officiate at gay weddings. In fact, it’s forbidden. Why is this so urgent since the sexual abuse and cover-up has impacted religion more? Which bishops have been laicized? Send Cardinal Law back for trial.
    Why was Fr.. Roy Bourgeois laicized–foremost anti-war priest who was jailed for 5 years for spilling his own blood on a missile site–for attending/assisting at a woman’s ordination? Is this on par with cover ups of sexual assaults on minors? No, it was B-16 four-year vendetta to do so.
    St. Paul was wrong on other items: would not allow women to teach men. Goodbye all the wonderful nuns.

    • jar

      Since some are born with one arm that is intrinsic? That means the person was ordained to be born with that defect? Is that your logic? We are in a fallen world. Being born with a handicap is not the way God ordained. God may permit physical evils but He never ordains them. We strive to correct our deformities we do not celebrate them. What an inverted world you have created.

      • Keith Babberney

        Are you saying it would be okay to discriminate against a person born with one arm? Does God make these “deformities” just so his followers can enjoy a little sport at their expense?

  • Pingback: Crisis Magazine - The Persecution of Christians | NOM Blog

  • Richard

    Where does the “conscience” choice stop? Is there a line that your religious beliefs are being imposed on others? Now it is about homosexuality, but at one time it was interracial marriage. Another, a women’s right to vote. Each extension of civil liberty bring angst to those opposed to change. Would this author support a vendors religious liberty to refuse service to an interracial couple? Or perhaps to a muslim couple? or even an inter-faith couple? Why only gay couples? Because it is about sex and cosidered proper sex that was never an issue until the rise of catholicism and religious oppression that followed.

  • MichaelinFlorida

    . “Despite their relatively small numbers, radical homosexuals wield enormous power. They dominate our cultural elite, Hollywood, television, the mainstream news media, public schools, academia, and a significant portion of the judiciary,” Thompson said in an e-mail interview. “As a result of their power, homosexual activists are able to intimidate and silence opposition.”
    Thompson gets it right. Gays are smarter, richer, and more creative. Small – minded people wield no power.

  • Scott

    These are all examples of public accommodations, which are for products or services available to the entire public. It should not be possible, for instance, to refuse service to, say, a Christian because one’s religion finds Christians to be heretics. Likewise, a hotel owner can’t refuse a room to an atheist, etc. This is not a matter of one’s religious beliefs or free speech being infringed upon, because when one opens a business to the public, it is for the entire public. If I didn’t like the possibility of preparing cakes for Bar Mitzfas or housing atheists, then I should not go into those businesses. I also disagree that this discomfort caused to some Christian-owed businesses by a small number of gay people; on the contrary, a large percentage of fair-minded American citizens support the idea of public accommodations be for all people, regardless of their specific minority statuses. Besides, the mainstream Christian denominations increasingly bless same-sex weddings and even allow married same-sex people to be pastors — even bishops. It is not some kind of anti-Christian sentiment that is driving this, it is rather a desire by thoughtful Americans that all its citizens be treated fairly in daily life. And it is blatantly dishonest for historical oppressors to claim victimhood just because those they have reviled are now standing up for themselves.

    • john anderson

      You’re so missing the point. Christians have been baking, serving, selling to gay people for decades and will continue to do so…and they will serve Muslims and atheists and anyone else who comes into their shop. This is not the issue. In the past if a gay couple came to an evangelical Christian photographer and asked him/her to photograph their wedding the forthcoming ‘no’ would have been expected and hardly shocking and certainly not perceived as a violation of rights; the business owner is simply following their beliefs and does not want to participate in or support a liturgical/spiritual/formalized event that they clearly cannot in good conscience support. It would be the equivalent of making an Orthodox Jew butcher sell you bacon. It would just be an absurd request. The fervor of the gay movement is such that it is demanding that even people whose deepest convictions reject the legitimacy of gay marriage MUST participate in a celebration of it. It actually threatens everyone’s civil liberties in the long run which a moment’s reflection should reveal. That being said I don’t think that gay marriage is the real culprit. The real culprit is placing ‘wedding ceremony’ on par with food and other basic services. Participation in a wedding ceremony- even as a ‘professional’ should always be a fully voluntary act and it is absurd to take someone to court for not wishing to be a part of it. We would all be shocked if a Muslim Imam sued a Rabbi for not participating (professionally or otherwise) in a Muslim ceremony…this is really no different. If a State declares gay marriage legal then so be it…but there should be no expectation that all the citizens of that state then HAVE to be a part of it…unless they are judges/clerks, etc., in the legal system. They truly have no choice (which is appropriate IMHO) but all others should be able to do as their conscience dictates. This is not the same as refusing service to a minority individual. Being Mexican or Black is not an ‘event’ or an ‘action’ or a type of religious service- it is a state of being! How is this even remotely comparable to a WEDDING is beyond me. I don’t care what your politics are…this should be seen for what it is- oppression of a belief group.

      • BenjaminLatrobe

        +WRONG+ – In order for them to be in business they have to be licensed. And if they violate the rules and discriminate they can have their license pulled. The point is that they are discriminating against some one or some group that they do not like. DUH – ‘Which is illegal…!” Your long winded excuse for condoning discrimination is as bad as any gets. The “victim” is the one being “DISCRIMINATED” against – Not the other way around. It is amazing how you can all twist the reality of these situations and continually whine about “Religious Liberty”. You have broken the LAW; not the other way around. You have illegally discriminated against and offended the consumer. The Customer does not have to settle for anything considering your belief system & excuse your behavior. The above ridiculous reasons why a customer shouldn’t be a customer are totally irrelevant. Christian (fundamentalists) believe they are totally above the laws of the Constitution if they feel that a Biblical Law supports it. You are all on very shaky ground here. The Judges are giving a little bit of leeway BUT your days of using your religious faith to support your prejudices & blatant violation of a U.S. Citizen’s rights is coming to an end.