Yes, of course a business owner should have the right to refuse service to gay people

gay bill

We critics of modern society tend to run into a problem very similar to the one you encounter when you go to a bar with 27 different beers on tap.

Sometimes, we just don’t know where to begin.

That’s how I feel when I read about the progressives working themselves into a lather over that religious freedom bill in Arizona. The legislation simply solidifies a business owner’s right to act according to his or her religious beliefs (I say “further solidifies” because the First Amendment already covers this ground pretty thoroughly). “News” outlets like CNN, engaging in blatant editorializing (surprise!), refer to it as “the anti-gay bill,” because part of religious freedom is the right to not participate in activities which you find mortally sinful.

It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions.

This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is, because some gays in some states have specifically and maliciously targeted religious florists, bakers, and photographers, so that they can put these innocent people in a compromising position, and then run to the media and the courts when — GASP! — Christians decide to follow the dictates of Christianity.

Yet, the cases that sparked this law are hardly discussed. The progressive mob claims that this legislation is about shoving gays to the back of the bus and making them drink out of separate fountains. George Takei echoed the sentiments of many when he likened the Arizona bill to “Jim Crow.”

And here we arrive at my quandary. There are so many lies being told about this bill; so many ridiculous and offensive exaggerations; so many untruths, half-truths, and truth-omissions; so many dishonest tactics at play, that I’m utterly overwhelmed by it all. The propagandists are shouting from all around me, and I can’t engage them from every side at once.

If I had the time, I’d specifically address the continued comparisons drawn between the historical plight of blacks in America and the imagined plight of gays in present day. I’d point out how this is much like comparing a stubbed toe to the Holocaust.

We should remember that blacks were in chains in this country. They were literally treated as less than human. They could be legally murdered and beaten and starved. They were set apart, cast aside, and violently and systematically oppressed.

Not only are gays in a better position than this, but the two scenarios are diametrically opposite. Unlike historical blacks, gays are afforded special legal protections. They are celebrated by the president, Hollywood, pop culture, the media, mainstream culture, and most major corporations. They are hoisted on a pedestal by only the most powerful and influential people in the country.

Black people ought to deliver a sound verbal smackdown to any historically illiterate gasbag who even attempts to paint the slightest equivalency between the suffering of blacks and gays.

But I could write several pages on this aspect alone, and maybe I will soon.

For now, I think I have to do the work that the media, and even many talking head “conservatives,” won’t.

Left wingers are busily constructing fantastical narratives about restaurant owners who wish to prevent gays from eating at their establishments, and cab drivers who want nothing more than to drive right past the gay man hailing him on the sidewalk. Meanwhile, here in the Land of Things That Actually Happen, nobody is proposing, nor condoning, nor anticipating, nor hoping for, nor looking to specifically protect that sort of thing. That sort of thing isn’t happening, and it won’t happen. It’s not an issue. It’s not real. It’s a fantasy. A lie. A total fabrication.

Instead, some see it necessary and prudent to stop private citizens from using the courts to force other private citizens to actively participate in a particular act which they find morally objectionable. That’s all. And — unlike the handwringing about the mystical Denny’s manager who might try to use the Bible to justify not serving pancakes to a lesbian — this is a real thing that has occurred several times recently.

Examples:

Hands On Originals. The Christian owner of a local t-shirt company declined to produce shirts advertising Lexington’s annual Gay Pride Festival. Hands On Originals had likely made shirts for many gay people in the past. As far as I know, they never asked anyone to fill out a questionnaire about their sexual proclivities before ordering their apparel. In this case, however, the company was being asked to advertise for a gay pride festival. He politely turned down the business and even pointed the organizers to other manufacturers that would make the shirts at the same or better rates. Nobody’s rights were infringed upon. Nobody was victimized. Nobody was even inconvenienced.

But the bullies at Kentucky’s Gay and Lesbian Services Organization smelled an opportunity. They dragged Hands On before the “Human Rights Commission” and accused them of “human rights violations.” The HRC sided with the gay bullies. So did Lexington’s mayor. Lexington’s mayor is openly gay, by the way. But I’m sure that had nothing to do with his opinion on the matter.

Masterpiece Cake Shop. The Christian owner of a Colorado bakery has been forced by a judge to bake cakes for gay weddings, after declining the business 0f two gay men who wanted him to make a cake for their same sex nuptials. The baker didn’t refuse them “because they’re gay.” In fact, he specifically said: “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

He had a problem with the activity itself, not the people participating in it. But the gay couple, instead of respecting the man’s beliefs, decided to whine to the ACLU. Eventually a lawsuit was filed, and the couple complained in court of being “dehumanized.”

DEHUMANIZED. Because some guy wouldn’t make a cake for their wedding. Dehumanized.

Unborn babies butchered in abortion mills? Sorry, not dehumanizing. One bakery in the entire country decides not to make dessert for a gay wedding? DEHUMANIZING.

Makes sense, right?

Elane Photography. A New Mexico judge ruled that a small photography company in the state is not allowed to decide which weddings they will photograph and which weddings they won’t photograph. He compelled the Christian photographers who own the business to work gay weddings, despite their religious convictions.

This ruling came after Elane Huguenin politely declined to photograph a lesbian wedding back in 2006. As Huguenin explained: they will “gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

But this wasn’t good enough. Even though the lesbian customers promptly found a different photographer who charged better rates, they still took the matter to the courts.

Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts. A florist in Washington state was sued after she decided not to provide flowers for a gay wedding. In this case, even the customers admit that the business owner had served them many times over ten years. If she wanted to “refuse service to gays,” she would have already. But it wasn’t the gay men she had a problem with — it was the gay wedding. Of course this explanation, reasonable as it might be, wasn’t sufficient.

She was dragged to court. The lawsuit, I believe, is still ongoing.

In none of these cases did the business owner forgo service to a gay person out of some kind of disgust or animosity towards gays. They simply wished to take no part in a gay wedding. To call this discrimination against gays is to make no distinction between the person of a homosexual and the activity of a homosexual.

It’s absolutely nonsensical. It also, again, makes any comparison to “Jim Crow laws” seem insane. Blacks were denied basic services because they were black — not because of their activity.

The gay people in these cases are asking Christians to specifically participate in a morally objectionable act. You can tell me that gay weddings are not morally objectionable, but that isn’t up to you. That’s your belief. This is their belief. In America, we are supposed to be free to live according to our convictions. We can only be stopped from living our convictions if our convictions call us to do harm to another. Were any of these gay couples “harmed” by having to go back to Google and find any of a thousand other options?

Perhaps their feelings were hurt. Fine. Are we saying that we have no right to do something if it might hurt someone’s feelings? Are we prepared to take that logic to its fullest extent?

Put differently, to tell a Christian that they must provide services to a gay wedding because that’s what a gay person wants, is to say that one must condone the actions of a gay person in order to affirm the dignity and inherent human worth of a gay person. Now we have, yet once more, provided special legal accommodations to this protected class.

No other group is afforded such privileges. I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.

I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful.

And you know what? I would never try.

Maybe that’s what separates liberty lovers from liberals. For all their talk about “minding your business” and “this doesn’t concern you” and “live and let live,” theirs is truly an ideology of compulsion. The free speech and expression of other citizens must be tamed by the whip of their lobbying, legislating, and litigating.

It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a “right” to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer.

But this is tyranny. It doesn’t have to make sense.

Make no mistake: this is tyranny. Tyranny is not injured emotions, hurt feelings, and minor inconveniences. Tyranny is the government compelling a man or woman to conform to a dogma or bow to an idol. Tyranny is when you are forced to abandon your beliefs and fall in line.

And tyranny is still tyranny, even when it comes wrapped in tolerance and “human rights.”

******

Find me on Facebook.

And Twitter.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2,282 Responses to Yes, of course a business owner should have the right to refuse service to gay people

  1. Pingback: Private Businesses owners should be allowed to refuse service for religious reasons. | Human/ Mormon/ Woman: Katherine

  2. Justin says:

    If business owners can refuse service to gay weddings can they refuse service to interracial weddings too? Can they refuse service to people who don’t get married in their religions way? Can they refuse service to straight people? Refusing to interact with a person based on prejudices you have is wrong. It is discrimination eventhough it is on religious grounds. One theory about why blacks were inferior was that it was a punishment from God. If that is your belief can you discriminate against people of color? It is true that American citizens have the right to free speech and free expression but they don’t have the right to use those freedoms to hurt others. Refusing service to gay people does hurt them. Discriminating against a person for any reason hurts them. No one has a right to discriminate against other people. It is offensive that they would use their so called Christian morals to defend their bigotry. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself. These “Christians” should consider that when they chose to use Jesus to support their own backward ideas.

    • Seriously? says:

      Did you even read the article?

      • Justin says:

        Can you please make a more specific criticism of my comment.

        • Kevin says:

          How convenient it is that he or she doesn’t. I agree with you spot on. Might as well put up signs that say, will refuse service to “blacks” as the writer so says. See if it isn’t legally put down. Things being discussed here are legal matters. If it were moral, then pshh, I could say my religion requires I peep at my neighbor while she’s changing every night. It’s my deeply held religious conviction to do so!

        • Matt Settle says:

          Justin, you obviously are not responding to Matt’s article. He made the clear distinction between refusing to participate in an ACTIVITY that you find objectionable and discriminating against PEOPLE of a particular group. You seem to have missed the whole point of the article. That would be my more specific criticism of your comment.
          Your also bring up Christianity and Jesus, although neither was mentioned in the article. If you’d like to discuss them, however, that would be fine. Do you think, for example, that a Christian pharmacist could lovingly refuse to sell deadly drugs to known drug pushers at an elementary school? Or would Jesus insist that such discrimination must be unloving bigotry?

        • Justin says:

          Yes, I have read the article several times now. I read before posting this comment. I wonder if you have read the article. You say there is no mention of Christianity but the whole point of the article is that Christian shops should be able to refuse to play a role in gay activities. I think that it is unchristian to refuse service to gay people in any way. Refusing service does include refusing to make wedding cakes. The mentions of homosexuality being a sin are all in the Old Testament. When Jesus came to earth he came to fulfill the Mosaic laws. For example, Moses says killing is a sin and then in the sermon on the mount Jesus says that just being angry is a sin and that one should make peace with others. I believe that when Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself he overrides several OT laws including the laws against homosexuality. Your example about the pharmacist is frankly silly. What kind of pharmacy sells “deadly drugs” and why would third graders be buying them anyway? Also, just because you deal drugs doesn’t mean that you don’t need medication for valid medical problems. I don’t think Jesus would have a problem filling a drug dealers prescription so that the person wouldn’t get sick or die. About your main criticism, you state that there is a distinction between refusing to participate in gay activities and discriminating or refusing service to a particular group of people. Baking a cake for gay people isn’t participating in a gay activity. The baker isn’t invited to the wedding. Refusal to participate in gay activities could be expanded to restaurants, clubs, bars, convention centers, spas, hotels, car rental companies, and various other businesses too. They might not want gay couples to have dates in their restaurant, dance together in clubs, have couples spa treatments, stay in the same room at a hotel, or rent a car together during vacation. If that lesbian at Denny’s that Matt mentioned was with her wife or girlfriend then she might have been refused food on the grounds of a date being a homosexual activity. Jim Crows laws weren’t put in place because blacks had dark skin they were put in place so that whites would not have to see, hear, or have any part in the black behavior that they found objectionable. Laws allowing businesses to refuse service to gays because a business owner doesn’t like that a same sex couple is getting married is dehumanizing and it is discrimination. Same sex couples are seen as immoral and not as valuable as straight couples. That is dehumanizing and disgusting.

        • eaglecam5 says:

          “The mentions of homosexuality being a sin are all in the Old Testament. ” Really? Then you obviously have not read the NT.

        • Justin says:

          Can you please point out the instances of homosexuality being described as a sin in the New Testament.

        • Kunoichi says:

          “point out the instances of homosexuality being described as a sin in the New Testament.”

          That’s a dishonest question, as the homosexual label is a modern invention. The Bible talked about behaviours (including behaviours in thought, such as lust, envy, etc). Until the label was created, people didn’t define themselves or each other by their attractions, but by their actions. A thief is not a thief until he steals something.

          The most rediculous thing is to define people as who they are by something as ephemeral as “attraction.” We are defined by our actions, not our fleeting desires. Only when those desires become obsessions (e.g. want vs covet, attraction vs lust, desire vs greed) do they become sinful behaviour on the same level as physically commiting the acts (e.g. lust becomes equally sinful as adultery or fornication; there is a physiological and neural response in lust that does not happen with mere attraction). Putting people into boxes and stamping labels on them based because they happened to think or feel something at some point in their lives, then assigning those labels onto them for the rest of their lives, as being somehow unchangeable, has probably done more harm to people with SSA than any sort of politically correct, happy-sappy “it’s all about looooovvveee…” mentality. How is it that we now live in a world where “gender” – which has always been a grammatical term referring to which reproductive organs we have – is now viewed as something on a sliding scale, or that we can choose, regardless of what body we were born in, yet the labels of LGBTT2QQPetc, which are defined by attraction (a very broad and generic term, I might add), are considered immutable because we are just “born that way.”

          The thing about sin is why some things are sinful. Sin causes harm. Even our “little white lies” that so many don’t even think about. Sin hurts us and those around us, no matter how much we try to deny it or justify it or pretend it doesn’t, or how good it might feel at the time we engage in them.

          You’re not going to find “homosexual” in the Bible because the concept, as we have it today, did not exist. What the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, does is make several things clear;

          husbands are male, wives are female
          in marriage, husband and wife “become one flesh” (both a physical (sexual) and spiritual act)
          husband and wife are to be sexually exclusive, “forsaking all others”
          sex outside of marriage is sin

          So demanding to be shown some place in the NT that condemns “homosexuality” is just plain dishonest. The act is condemned by exclusion; sexual relations are to be limited to a husband and a wife – anything else is sinful. There is no “husband and husband” or “wife and wife”.

        • Jackson says:

          eaglecam5,
          “The bible contains SIX admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals, they just need more supervision” Lynn Lavner. Thankfully our country doesn’t base it’s laws on any religious text, quit trying to impose your ideals on free people capable of making our own decisions. Thanks, Jackson

        • Roelie says:

          More specific…ok. What Matt was saying was these people were Not being refused service for being gay. Not at all, in fact they were told that for any other reason at all they would be glad to have them as customers. BUT for reasons that THEIR FAITH (you know the one we are freely allowed to choose and believe in) they would rather not participate in their gay wedding. Freedom of religion. Why is that so hard to understand? This is where democracy is taken away. When you no longer have the choice to choose who you provide your services for. Is this specific enough for you?

        • Justin says:

          I think that the rights of individual citizens take precedent over all other laws that might be imposed by the government. People can hold whatever beliefs they want. However, businesses are not private citizens. Businesses operate with other people in the public and need to abide by the publics rules and conventions. One of these rules is that you cannot refuse service to anyone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. If businesses loose some rights for private citizens to gain some then that seems like a fair trade.

      • MagB says:

        I read the article and I agree with Justin. God did not write the Bible, man did. The Powers That Be interpreted whatever teachings they ran across and chose to use them literally when it suited them and figuratively when that helped make their case. I don’t think Jesus would have cared who he made cakes for or how those cakes were to be used. It is very sad that you could not see how discriminatory this law is. Businesses have always had the right to decline a customer, putting a law into effect that puts the power of their religion behind it opens the proverbial ‘flood gates’.

        • SamA says:

          “God did not write the Bible, man did.”
          That statement is untrue
          Yes, the scriptures were written by physical human hands and were not written by any spiritual, ghostly hands, but the people who wrote these scriptures were filled with the Holy Spirit, part of the Trinity, and were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote. All that was written in the Bible was written by divine inspiration.

    • Michael says:

      They can refuse service to anyone. Because it is a SERVICE, not a RIGHT. They went into business on their own, they can run their business how they want. You are not entitled to happiness but the pursuit; so find it…from a source that doesn’t mind serving you. Get over yourself and realize the ‘rights’ you tout you use to infringe upon others. You just hate Christians because they believe you are wrong- you don’t like to be told you’re wrong- nobody does. But you don’t have a right to be told you’re always correct, you have a right to choose how you live. So do I. So does everyone else.

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      Race isn’t a (Christian) religious issue, or it has no grounds to be one today if it *ever* was one, and I have never found any support for such a view in my own extensive readings of the Bible — New and Old Testament — and I am a white, Evangelical Christian. As far as I’m convinced, those white racist pastors and other “Christian” leaders who supported slavery and Jim Crow are in hell now, rejected by Christ as posers, assuming they all remained unrepentant and are dead by now…. Likewise, any black racist “pastor” who claims that there is evidence in the Bible somewhere, somehow, that the white man is a devil and enemy of God is a lying child of The Devil himself; there is no theological backing for either position.

      Regardless of all that, I don’t think it’s relevant anyways, because I don’t see how religion plays a role here: I believe that it is simply both fair and Constitutional that owners of private businesses should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they stinkin’ want to, despite if they might be the biggest racists or bigots (or “bigots” in the case of Bible-believing, homosexuality-rejecting Christians) in the world — liberal judges and their dictatorships of the minority be damned. Just because some liberal, activist jerk wearing a robe says “This is what the Constitution says… to moi — ha ha ha!” doesn’t make such nonsense into irrefutable truth.

      A private business owner should be able to do or not do what s/he wants with his or her business within the confines of not depriving another American of Life, Liberty, or the ability to Pursue Happiness. Why? Because a privately owned business is the *personal property* of the owner, and a private citizen is not required by our Constitution to *do anything* with her or his private property that s/he doesn’t want to, including use that private property to do business with Sam or Sally. Any attempt by the government to force such unwilling use of private property is tyranny.

      Now, publicly-traded businesses I’ll gladly concede are not (or should not be considered) the private property of any individual, despite whoever might own >50% of the stocks or whatever the profit-dispensing and voting apparatus may be; they are not quite the same but approach the degree of public composition and rulership over the public as with our Constitutional citizen-government; thus they should not have any agenda but to make a profit, and I can understand the justifiability of discrimination complaints brought against such a business. However, none of the businesses being targeted by homosexual activists are of this sort; in fact, many publicly-owned businesses are being used to *promote* the homosexual agenda, giving Christians and other heterosupporters justification to bring action against them for discrimination. The CEOs and marketers of these public corporations should not be making any political statements nor giving money to political causes in the name of the ownerless public institutions that they were *hired* to lead in business matters.

      That’s my reasoned view on the subject.

    • Pete says:

      Let me answer all your questions. Yes.

  3. Str8Jew says:

    The difference is that asking for pork from a Muslim or a cheeseburger from a Jewish deli and not receiving it is not a violation of ones human rights and doesn’t make you feel like a lower life form as an individual. You can still have the same freedoms as everyone else, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, black, white, gay or straight if you eat a kosher or halal burger or roast beef sandwich instead of a non-kosher or halal meal that you have asked for which defies their religion… But frankly refusing service to homosexuals is demeaning and makes them feel lower as human beings. Don’t you understand the difference? Imagine if someone refused to respect your love for who you fall in love with? Anyway Christianity is just a made up form of government ripped off of of the Jews made up form of government before there was organized government. It’s an excuse for you to be a stubborn asshole. If you actually studied any of it or were educated you would know the stories don’t make sense and Islam, Judism and Christianity are all basically the same set of general rules to all get along and retell history. You should probably read a book sometime. Maybe the bible. At least then you might realize there’s nothing in it that is against homosexuality. In fact- it’s a little homoerotic… 😉

    Also the whole person refusing to serve pancakes at Denny’s to a lesbian is TOTALLY why all this is a big deal. If it was just about religious ceremonies nobody would care. But it’s the fact that you morons are trying to actually refuse service to people based on anything aside from “no shirt and no shoes” is appaling.

    • Michael says:

      Maybe someone likes food more than people. That’s their choice. This now makes your point moot. Also, The Bible states God ‘Abhors’ sexual perversion. Pretty sure a dick doesn’t fit in a dick so I am pretty sure it’s not a lie. old testament or new, it also says God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow- so don;t give us that crap either. In fact, why don’t all you ‘progressives’ shut up, let people have their freedom of speech, and not let this post bother you.

      • Jackson says:

        Michael,
        Hogwash, you don’t want free speech…You want only ‘Christian regressives (just trying this out since you all are so opposed to progress…Do you like it?) to have free speech. What the Bible states has no standing to the public at large, we live by US law. As far as the “dick doesn’t fit in a dick” comment, you might want to look up gay sex (they don’t do it that way…) or find a therapist with some anatomically correct dolls so they can act it out for you. Matt has an extremely one sided post about text books that would make you blush…Yea, Regressives! Thanks, Jackson

      • Brandon says:

        What you want is freedom to discriminate. I’m pretty sure the ruling on that was decided after the Civil War, when the South lost. In case you forgot, they were fighting for “states rights” too…the right to own other people.

        • qwerty says:

          Slavery was still going on in the Northern States, dipshit.

        • Jackson says:

          qwerty,
          You haven’t a clue what slavery is…you seem pretty good at petulant behavior. This bigot bill that would have unshackled you from behaving as a human being was VETOED… By a Republican governor! Fair and equal treatment, not under Christian rule…. Thanks, Jackson

        • holzmantweed says:

          That does not change the fact that the southern States committed treason against the United States of America in order to ensure the perpetuation of the institution of enslaving Black people. Four of their declarations of independence spelled this out, and the CSA Vice President explained it in detail in his Cornerstone Speech.

        • qwerty says:

          You guys have a puppet’s perspective on the whole War of Northern Aggression. Slavery existed in the North even after the war. Your denial doesn’t change the facts and your outrage won’t change people’s minds about you, which is obviously your obsession.

      • katherine1977 says:

        Ur a dick fits in an ass just like it does in a vagina.

        • qwerty says:

          Maybe yours does, Katherine. Speak for your own ass.

        • sheabernard says:

          No, it does not. An ass is protected by an one-way exit only sphincter muscle specifically designed to allow passage one way but not the other, with no provision for lubrication even if it was a bi-directional sphincter muscle, which it is not. Do you know anything about biology dipshit? Pervs and their minions should be rounded up onto boxcars.

        • Jackson says:

          sheabernard,
          Once again obsessed with gay sex and describing the mechanics… What an activity for a Christian ‘lady’. Finishing up her post with “Pervs and their minions should be rounded up onto boxcars” …. Is this out of the “Nazi Playbook”? Is there a link on your blog? God must indeed be glorified by this kind of devotion. Thanks, Jackson

        • TheKnowerseeker says:

          Anal sex sends many a gay man to the doctor. Look it up.

    • Kris Young says:

      I’m sorry, but based upon your comment, you are in need of a more thorough reading of the bible. Christianity is rooted in the New testament, unlike Judiasm, Muslim, or Islam. The latter draw heavily from the old testament. Jesus mocked the religious leaders of his day. One of my favorite lines from the bible is where Jesus tells a Pharasy (sp) that a prostitute will be entering heaven before the Pharasy. Golden. Christianity is the one religion that doesn’t base getting into heaven by a book of rules, or a spiritual “checklist” as I like to think of it as.

      • TheKnowerseeker says:

        Jesus didn’t say or imply that someone who actively chooses to participate in prostitution would enter Heaven, only that theocracies shouldn’t exist (mustn’t “stone” or otherwise punish the prostitute for the sake of avenging sin, because nobody but God has that right) and ex-prostitutes *would* go to Heaven, as well as the Pharisees, if they would repent their sins, turn away from them, and accept Jesus as Messiah. (The Bible implies that the overwhelming majority of the Pharisees didn’t do this.) Go read, carefully, the New Testament — for real this time, m’kay?

        • Jackson says:

          The Knowerseeker?,
          How about you read the Constitution carefully, and save the New Testament for your house or church. This isn’t a theocracy, but a democracy. “M’kay?” ? Thanks, Jackson

        • TheKnowerseeker says:

          Jackson, how about your reply has nothing to do with the comment I responded to, which means you’re a troll.

        • Jackson says:

          TheKnowerseeker,
          Troll? LOL…. Not stupidhead? Thanks, Jackson

        • Jackson says:

          TheKnowerseeker,
          LOL, you amuse me! Thanks, Jackson

    • Maddy says:

      The right to receive a wedding cake is not a human right. Even if it was, the right to receive a wedding cake from that specific baker would not be a human right. Being able to get married is not even a human right. According to the Declaration of Human Rights, as written by the United Nations and ratified by the USA, human rights include life, liberty, and property, as well as equal protection/protection from discrimination under the law. Not private businesses.

      You are correct about the fallacies inherent in the Muslim/Pork analogy. The argument is invalidated by its comparison of Christian service providers to Muslim consumers. As consumers, Muslims could choose to eat at another restaurant if their service was provided for. But so could gays. Gays are also the consumers. Christians have no choice or alternative when they are forcibly compelled by their government to provide a service.

      If someone who hated Christians denied me service because they didn’t agree with my religion or thought I was a bigot, I would go seek that service somewhere else. Don’t try to argue that gays have less options because they are so oppressed wherever they go; a 2014nWashington Post poll on public opinion concluded that roughly 60% of this country is in favor of same-sex marriage.

      • Stephanie says:

        “Don’t try to argue that gays have less options because they are so oppressed wherever they go; a 2014nWashington Post poll on public opinion concluded that roughly 60% of this country is in favor of same-sex marriage.”

        If you were only given 60% of your breakfast, lunch, and dinner everyday would you still be hungry? Yes.

        Having 60% of the country agree you can get married is in no way proof that LGBT* people are no longer oppressed. Marriage equality is great, and I’m glad people are finally voting in favor of it, but equal marriage doesn’t end discrimination.

    • Steven says:

      Dude, the Bible talks about homosexuality a TON! Assuming you own a Bible, look up the word homosexuality in the glossary. God blew two city’s ( Sodom and Gomorra) to bits because of a great wickedness. Homosexuality was mentioned as one of these great sins. In the New Testament Paul rebukes the Romans for homosexuality. Maybe, one of the reasons Jesus didn’t come in contact with homosexuals was 1:The Jewish society was against homosexuals. I would say on contrary to your opinion that nobody would even blink if a Jewish restaurant didn’t serve pork, so therefore when a Christian wedding cake store decides to not make a cake for a gay coupal people lose it. The Jewish man would probably have good reason to be offended if someone asked for pork at his restaurant, and society would accept it. Why then are CHRISTIANS not allowed to even refuse a cake to a gay coupal???? I am 13 and I don’t have to be a genius to figure this out.

      • Jackson says:

        Steven, The bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals. Six isn’t a TON is it? Do your parents know you are reading/posting here? You might want to talk to them about it first. Thanks, Jackson

  4. Perry says:

    This is about someone’s rights-of-business. Should a PETA-supporter (who owns a catering business) be required to cater to a hunting lodge?

    • Jason says:

      If the hunting lodge wants a veggie plate then they should have to serve the hunting lodge. Because It is a service that they would normally provide. Then they can take the cash that they make and donate to PETA. Everyone is happy.

      • Perry says:

        Even if the lodge is holding an anti-PETA fund-raising rally where there will be fresh game being dressed and served?

        And should drug companies be required to supply drugs for lethal-injection executions?

        • katherine1977 says:

          Ohhhh your last argument is not a good one to stand on. 🙂 Pharmaceutical companies would be tripping over each other in their excitement to land such a contract, heh.

        • Perry says:

          Wrong! Executions are on hold BECAUSE drug companies are refusing to supply the drugs. Do some more reading.

      • Perry says:

        And not all PETA supporters are vegetarians.

  5. I Cant Even says:

    The cis-normative white man feels that the minorities are oppressing his right to mix religion with business.

    • qwerty says:

      In this case, the fanatical minority is not defined by race. Thanks for expressing your bigotry.

  6. Religion, racism and same sex prejudice is just a complete waste of time. Life is too short to worry what other people are doing, just live your own life and accept that others are doing the same in their own way, don’t push your views onto others.

    • Kunoichi says:

      “just live your own life and accept that others are doing the same in their own way, don’t push your views onto others.”

      You do realize that, by filing a lawsuit, etc. to force businesses to provide their goods and services to events they have personal or moral objections to, it is those filing suit that are pushing their views onto others, right? They are the ones who are demonstrating bigotry and trying to use force of law, as well as threats and intimidation, not the businesses that simply tried to say “no” to serving a certain event.

      If people really believed we should all just live our own lives and not push our views on others, the couples in question would simply have gone to other businesses, and none of this would be happening.

    • But isn’t having someone bake a cake or take photos against their will also “pushing your views onto others”?

      • Jackson says:

        Kirby Crowley,
        If your profession is a baker or a photographer, NO… Thanks, Jackson

        • qwerty says:

          You seem to be comfortable telling him “No”, yet you can’t deal with being told “No” yourself. Think about that for a minute.

        • Jackson says:

          qwerty,
          Discrimination is not just saying no…. Jackson

    • qwerty says:

      Precisely. Don’t force your gay marriage equality dream on everyone else. Take no for an answer and call the union something else.

      • Jackson says:

        qwerty,
        This isn’t being forced on anyone. As citizens of the United States all are free and equal under the law. Equality should not have to be dreamed of in this nation. Thanks, Jackson

        • qwerty says:

          Yes, you and your fellow small army of verbally militant gimme’s are trying to FORCE everyone else to accept you. In most cases I support the cause, but not when you join in on the anti-religion march. Take no for an answer and move on with your life.

        • Jackson says:

          qwerty,
          I don’t need to be accepted, I’m not gay. I’m already married 30+ years to my lovely wife, 3 children (2 in college and 1 at home). This is for my children and (hopefully) grandchildren. I’m not anti-religion as a rule until people try to FORCE it into US law. No isn’t the correct answer…I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks, Jackson

  7. MSAT1 says:

    I believe this piece was written well and equitable. This is a scripture reference from the NT:
    Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
    It’s too bad that we make life complicated.

  8. kevin schablein says:

    Now we have a republican in San Diego Championing the idea that store owners should be able to refuse service to African Americans. The hate that comes from the right and religious reich is amazing.

    • Jackson says:

      kevin schablein,
      Isn’t it amazing how these nit-wits want to regress this country 100 years and call it freedom of association? Fair and equal under the law seems pretty simple, but these morons can pervert even that….with religion. Fight the good fight Kevin…. Thanks, Jackson

      • qwerty says:

        Look at the fanatical minority member, calling names because someone told him no. You should think again about the consequences of opening that door.

        • Jackson says:

          qwerty,
          ‘Fanatical minority member’? Your side lost this bid for bigotry. The bans of gay marriage are being overturned as discrimination. All I want is for all of us to be free. Thanks, Jackson

  9. csalafia says:

    Owners have beliefs. Businesses do not.

    If you choose to enter the marketplace, you must abide by the rules and regulations that govern it.

    This piece in nothing more than a tl;dr justification for discrimination and bigotry.

    Oh, and the comparison of segregated lunch counters to the current bigotry bill(s) wandering through state legislatures is valid. During the Jim Crow days, Christians used the same justifications to support segregation as they’re using to support this.

    • Jackson says:

      csalafia,
      Very well stated. Thanks, Jackson

    • sheabernard says:

      “Owners have beliefs. Businesses do not.”

      Pretty sure Coke, Nabisco, Starbucks, etc. ad nauseam have beliefs about homosexuality – your hypocrisy, csalafia, does not seem to allow this to bother you, only when a business has an opinion not in favor of homo-perverts do you claim “Owners have beliefs. Businesses do not”.

      So when will you be petitioning business with pro-homo beliefs to drop those beliefs, because “businesses do not have beliefs”?

      • Jackson says:

        sheabernard,
        The difference lies in that Coke, Nabisco, Starbucks, etc. haven’t practiced discrimination. They serve the public fairly and equally. Please picket Starbucks, I can have a laugh while I drink my coffee and enjoy a pagan pastry! Thanks, Jackson

      • csalafia says:

        “pro-homo perverts”? Seriously?

        Are you interviewing for head of the WBC now that Fred Phelps died?

        When a person decides to go into business they must abide by the laws that regulate the marketplace.
        Discrimination is illegal. What part of illegal do you not understand?

      • GOD says:

        You, lady, are an ignorant bitch 🙂

        Sheesh, to think I created all these imbeciles. I should have appeared to your mother in a dream and told her to have an abortion.

  10. Brandon says:

    I don’t understand why a business would willingly turn away so much potential revenue? Not just from gays themselves, but from people who support gays and are against discrimination. Science has proven homosexuality is not a choice, so this isn’t any different than pre-Civil Rights Jim Crow laws no matter how you justify it. Unless you are following every single silly, ancient Jewish law from the chapter of Leviticus, you are a hypocrite and your argument is null and void. At least admit the only reason you are against homosexuality is because you find it “weird” and it makes you uncomfortable. Stop hiding behind ancient texts. “And tyranny is still tyranny, even when it comes wrapped in tolerance and “human rights.” How about, discrimination is still discrimination, even when it comes wrapped in “religious freedom.”

  11. This isn’t a bad blog. Especially for one expressing a conservative view, which all too often ends up being militant. However, the fundamental flaw with your reasoning lies in this paragraph:

    “It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a “right” to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer.”

    Luckily, those are not the “rights” being argued. The argument is equal protection under the law. If a business owner goes into business selling cakes, they need to stand ready to make cakes for everyone.

    “But this is tyranny. It doesn’t have to make sense.

    Make no mistake: this is tyranny. Tyranny is not injured emotions, hurt feelings, and minor inconveniences. Tyranny is the government compelling a man or woman to conform to a dogma or bow to an idol. Tyranny is when you are forced to abandon your beliefs and fall in line.”

    Tyranny is cruel, oppressive, unfair treatment perpetrated upon one by another in power. That’s it. It doesn’t include any of your additions to the definition. And “cruel, oppressive, unfair treatment” are words that mean different things to different people. Hence, we have laws that qualify what these words mean on a universal level. Otherwise, we would have people coming out of the woodwork complaining that getting a $200 fine for a speeding ticket is “cruel, oppressive, unfair treatment” because it forces them to abandon their beliefs that poor people shouldn’t be fined and they shouldn’t have to fall in line with state laws requiring them to pay them fine.

    But even supposing that we abandon the real definition of tyranny and instead use your definition. Surely you can agree that requiring a cake maker, who broadcasts services making cakes, to include those services to everyone is not forcing the cake maker to “abandon..[their] beliefs and fall in line.” Surely a reasonable person should assume that baking a cake is just that…..baking a cake.

    • “Luckily, those are not the “rights” being argued. The argument is equal protection under the law. If a business owner goes into business selling cakes, they need to stand ready to make cakes for everyone.”

      Actually, those ARE the rights being argued. In no case did the merchant state they would not provide products or services that are already “on the menu”. Willing to bake a cake is different from providing female/male (bride/groom) decorations vs male/male or female/female decorations. That would be more like a baker that chooses to provide only angel food cakes being forced to bake a devil’s food cake.

    • qwerty says:

      Your example of the speeding ticket is ridiculous compared to marriage, which is one of the pillars of civilization. The LGBT crowd, a tiny percentage of the population, should define their union in some other way. Simple as that. What we instead have is a fanatical minority pitching hissy fits over being told “No”.

      As for militancy of conservative views, you are seemingly unaware of the genocide and oppression our ancestors suffered to give us this life of bickering convenience. If you don’t have the ability to say “No” then you have lost freedom. From there it is a steep and slippery slope. You should lose this fantasy of everyone getting along and being polite. Nature doesn’t even operate with such assumption of fairness.

      • Bam! says:

        In any country, you never really have “freedom”. You are given privileges by your government. True “freedom” doesn’t exist. I find it silly you all keep throwing around this silly illusion.

        Why should the minority shed some of their rights in order to please the majority? Should women of the past have bowed down to the majority who viewed them only as child-bearers and not fought for their rights? Should blacks have bowed down to the majority who viewed them as slaves and not fought for their rights? As time passes, laws should change because society changes. Even Thomas Jefferson believed that laws should change in accordance with the times.

        The main issue here is that these religious folk are picking and choosing what they want to follow from their religions. Why don’t they refuse service to divorcees, single parents, atheists, etc? Why is it only the homosexuals who are being singled out?

        Also, civil unions are not equal to marriages. That is another issue the LGBT community is facing. Though it appears the vast majority of your type of people are ignorant of this little fact.

  12. k23mt says:

    Matt. come out of the closet. There are people who will welcome you. Not many of your regular followers, of course…….

  13. sheabernard says:

    Why don’t Christian Bakers simply put a sign up that says all homosexual wedding cakes will have 100% of the proceeds donated to NOM or the AFA in the name of the happy perv couple? That should curb the homo-pervert-militants.

    P.S. Jackson may not be gay, but I’ll be my next weeks ridiculous govt salary that he has family or friends who are and that he does not have the guts nor backbone to stand up to them, so he joins them. Small little man.

    • Jackson says:

      sheabernard,
      I do have gay friends…still have all my original equipment (do have a fused disc… Lots of backbone). I don’t have the obnoxious ( I definitely can be) and presumptuous habit of denouncing my friends because of who they love. I did loose 26 pounds, thanks for noticing! Jackson

    • GOD says:

      Your mother should have put a sign on her tw@t stating “NO D1CKS ALLOWED”. But of course, the whore had to spread those legs for some man and push your useless ass out. Sigh. You and her both should be stoned for being immoral women, and you especially for speaking out of place.

      Please get off of your husband’s computer, my child.

  14. Jackson says:

    sheabernard,
    Christian Bakers (who want to discriminate) could just use the Swastika (Nazi colors)… No acronyms required. Clearer? Yes, Easier? I think so…the same contempt for humanity that doesn’t fit a perfect stereotype, conceived by a madman incapable of that ideal…. Hate laws will not make this nation stronger or happier. Thanks, Jackson

  15. Nunya says:

    If you run a business then you’re held to all of the laws regulating businesses in the US. Should you be able to refuse service to a couple with an open marriage? How about refusing service to a stripper who wants to get married? Can you refuse service to someone who uses the Lord’s name in vain? Should a Jewish cake maker be allowed to refuse service to anyone who eats pork? How about refusing service to anyone who allows their wife to have equal authority in their marriage? There are many “sins” in the Bible. Homosexuality is hardly the only one present. Obviously a minister should be allowed to say that he doesn’t want to marry a gay couple. That would be a very real intrusion on his religious beliefs.

    A wedding cake though? You supply a product. That’s all you do. Do your job. Making a wedding cake for a buying customer doesn’t mean you support gay marriage. It simply means you’re supplying a product to a paying customer. Would they make a wedding cake for a Buddhist? Does that mean they support other religious beliefs? There’s no logical argument for refusing service to someone based on their sexual preferences. You don’t have to agree with someone to sell them something. It should be illegal to refuse service based on religious beliefs. If you want to own a business, then you need to get over it. You may not be able to fire someone just because you find out they’re a homosexual. You may have to decorate the cake with symbols from another religion. You don’t get to bring your religious intolerance into the workplace. Don’t mistake freedom for religion for the right to prejudice based on religion. The Constitution grants nothing of the sort.

    • Okay, Nunya, let me get this straight: If I have a photography business, and often shoot celebrations of one sort or another (weddings, birthdays, 50th anniversaries and such), should I be compelled by law to photograph/video a full-on, Caligula style orgy, if I disagree with the idea based on religion? But I’m sure I’d not be forced to participate (shooting, that is, not in any other way) if my objection was purely disgust. Because, as you say, “You don’t get to bring your religious intolerance into the workplace. Don’t mistake freedom for religion for the right to prejudice based on religion. The Constitution grants nothing of the sort.” Which brings us back to the idea that the Jewish deli owner could be compelled to serve a pork roast (“You may have to decorate the cake with symbols from another religion.”)

      I understand the discrimination part, it’s the forced participation part that confuses me, and I think that actually is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

      • Bam! says:

        See, buddy, the reality of your scenario actually taking place is pretty much a whopping ZERO percent. And if you are attracting those types of customers, I’d have to say you are probably participating in some sketchy business to begin with. This type of example you are using is far from the point that the OP was trying to make.

        It isn’t “forced participation”. If you can’t handle abiding by the laws that go hand-in-hand with businesses, then don’t create a business. Simple as that.

  16. Nunya says:

    Besides I’m unaware where the Bible states that you should persecute homosexuals (or anyone for that matter). Gay marriage was legal in Roman times. Jesus never mentioned it. He was quite adamant about how religion and politics shouldn’t mix though (the pharisees really pissed him off). This isn’t a religious matter. It’s a don’t be a jerk matter. Jesus didn’t tell anyone to be a jerk. That’s their own prejudice talking.

  17. sofia says:

    Just to answer a question .. the bible says a lot of specific things about homosexuality, one being that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as if it were a woman. There are verses in Leviticus, Corinthian, and many more about homosexuality. You could read a bible or simply Google to find out.

    Now to address previous comments of a people saying that refusing to participate in a gay marriage is the same as refusing service to blacks, no. Stop. The people that refused service did not refuse service yo gays. They refused to be part of something that directly defies the God they believe in. Nothing in the bible says it is a sin to be black, so refusing service to blacks, or anybody else for illegitimate reasons is pure discrimination and hatred. But refusing something because you were raised to believe that it is sin is not discriminating.

    I, personally, am for gay marriage. But I honestly believe that if you are going to be gay in this country you need to STOP complaining and being offended by everything!!!!!! Everyday there are women that feel they arent equal, or that they are being offended, dehumanized, blah blah, people seriously just love to complain. STOP. People dehumanize strippers and pornstars. People dehumanize other races, parents, celebrities, each other. Is everyone out here going to court for it? Gay marriage isn’t even legal in most states, why don’t they make dehumanizing lawsuits against every anti gay state??

    This country was founded on Christianity, our money says in God we trust. If these people trust in God and his word and don’t want to participate in what God said was abomination how can someone force them? That is hypocrisy. Refusing an interracial couple a wedding cake is retarded because nothing in the bible does it say it is sin or unnatural for different races to love or marry or reproduce. AND IM NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN. I don’t even follow the bible nor any religion. But RESPECT PEOPLE’S beliefs. If it was a gay mans birthday ad they wouldn’t make a cake that is pure hate. But the situation here is completely different.

    ONE LAST THING. Mr jackson .. for somebody that doesn’t like Matt’s blogs and always attempts to insult him, you sure are not only a faithful reader, but a faithful commenter. You reply to every single persons comment with your argument as if the blog was yours. Why don’t you fuck off and go tend to your children whom you are teaching to masturbate. Good day.

    • Jackson says:

      Sofia,
      Deluded stupid child the country was not founded on Christianity, the ‘In God We Trust’ motto on our money was added in 1956 and not allowing discrimination is not forcing it’s protecting. Since you seem slow and dim witted, so I will pity your ignorance. Please take your own advice… Thanks, Jackson

      • sofia says:

        Im sorry perverted father of three, yes it was. And its not discrimination, it is a RELIGION. Just like if a satanist wanted me to make them a cake for their satanic rituals and I refused, it is not discrimination. You are a sick deluted person and I feel very sorry for your children for you are clearly very narrow and closed minded. Don’t write back to me. Instead you should figure out what this secret obsession you have with Matt is about. You’ve subscribed to somebody just to try to insult people with your ignorant “facts” and opinions. Lol start your own blog see how many people agree that you are clearly incapable of any reason or logic thought, just stubborn closed minded very ugly opinions.

        • Jackson says:

          Sofia,
          You haven’t even the slightest idea of which you speak. The obsession I have with Matt and you is the same, when rabid dogs are circling civilization citizens much defend against them. Cakes aren’t often used in Satanic rituals, I doubt you could bake anyway. Keep trying Sofia, I know you can make a lucid argument eventually. Thanks, Jackson

        • holzmantweed says:

          Not only was the United States not founded on Christianity, the Declaration of Independence is a specific rejection of seventeen hundred years of Christian theology that held a King’s just power to govern came from Divine Grace. In it’s place, it proposed the polar-opposite idea that a government’s just power to govern derived from the consent of the governed. When some of the Founders wanted to state in the Constitution that the country was Christian they were specifically voted down.

          Also, the fact that someone has a religious rationalization for discrimination does not negate the fact that they are engaged in discrimination.

        • sofia says:

          When Christopher Columbus found America (way before the “founding fathers” who were sick men that raped their slaves) his goal was to spread Christianity. So TECHNICALLY it was founded on Christianity. ALSO if you do any research on this topic, there are nothing but disputes about it, no proof one way or another, so your response is irrelevant.

          People act like discrimination is a bad thing. EVERYONE discriminates. I don’t like to be surrounded by gangsters, or murderers. I am very discriminating about who is in my life, as im sure you are as well. So to pretend like discrimination is wrong is complete hypocrisy. I love when people try to confuse morals with discrimination. Those are the type of people that continuously make this world a BETTER PLACE. lol *sarcasm* good bye.

        • holzmantweed says:

          Actually, Columbus’ goal was to find a shorter route to India than the Silk Road. He had no idea that the North & South American continents were in the way. Once he stumbled across them, his goal was to exploit those resources to enrich himself and pay Queen Isabella back for all the money she spent funding his failed attempt to find a shorter route to India. There is no speculation here, this is all taken from his own diaries.

          Given the genocide he committed in order to get that money, which did include forcible conversation of the indigenous populations he encountered, I’m not sure I’d be eager to claim him as part of my religious heritage, but whatever floats your boat.

          Regardless, Columbus did not found the United States. To the extent that some of the Colonies that became the Founding States were founded with religious motives, the fact remains that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reject all prior Christian belief regarding how nations are founded. There is no speculation here, either, it is right there in the words on the page asserting that the United States is founded by “We, the People,” and not by the “Grace of God” referenced in the Magna Carta.

        • Crysta Williams says:

          Sofia, “People act like discrimination is a bad thing. EVERYONE discriminates.”

          How would you feel if you went into a flower shop to order special flowers for a friends wedding, and were refused service due to you being Christian?

          “I’m sorry, but I don’t support christian marriage, as it goes counter to my beliefs, and they always end in divorce anyway, and harm children in the process, so please take your evil, disgusting, sinful business elsewhere!” could be their excuse… Does that sound ok to you?

        • TheKnowerseeker says:

          I’m not the original commenter, but for me that would be fine, because Christians take care of their own.

        • Bam! says:

          Yep. Good ol’ Christians take care of their own but crap on everyone else who doesn’t believe in their great sky fairy. I’m certain your “God” really is proud of all you guys. Using “His” name to spread hate and intolerance.

          If there is a God, I’m certain he has a special place in Hell for all you self-righteous jackasses.

  18. James says:

    As usual many have missed the point. Blacks were denied service, killed, and punished for just being black. The nerve of gays to claim the same things because a Christian shop owner won’t participate in a gay marriage. Many of you have a disconnect between following your faith and bigotry. The Christian still demands that I love that gay person regardless, but no where is it stated that I must show love by supporting an otherwise sinful lifestyle. Which is a greater display of love? Letting your child do whatever they please regardless of consequence, or preventing them from partaking in an activity that would be harmful? Loving someone and supporting an issue are different. You can love a gay person, but not support their lifestyle. A lot don’t know how that distinction is made.

    • Bam! says:

      Newsflash, dude. Gays have also been persecuted for being gay. Many are the victims of hate crimes. Many also commit suicide due to constant bullying and even due to their families rejecting them. They have been persecuted throughout history. Do some research before you post, maybe?

      And also, quit picking and choosing what you want to follow from the Bible. It seems Bible thumpers love hating on gays, but you don’t ever see them hating on all the divorcees and single parents out there.

      Some friendly advice from the Bible: Stone any woman who is not a virgin on the day of her wedding. Bible says this. Remember to beat your kids if they talk back to you. Or you can just kill them if they become too disobedient. Bible says this.

      Now get out there with your stones and throw them at everyone who disobeys God’s laws! And don’t give me that “Jesus loves everyone blah blah blah”. Jesus isn’t God. The OT and NT are both part of the Bible as well, and Jesus states to follow ALL of God’s laws. The NT doesn’t trump the OT. Mmkay?

      Hope you have a happy day murdering in the name of God!

      • James says:

        First your statement of Jesus is not God is entirely false. Jesus states it many times that he is the great I AM. He is prophesied many times in the OT. This is not me picking which verses or tenants to follow. Friendly advice from the Bible to you. Those who live by the law die by the law, but we are no longer slaves to the law, but slaves to grace. The laws which are stated in the Bible show how utterly unattainable perfection is. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, so that means those laws need no longer to be followed. We are under grace now not the law. That is biblical. Also if you do live by the law, you will be judged by it, and since as humans we are not perfect, that is why grace is established, and Jesus is sent. You have missed the entire point of the Bible.

        I’m a history major, so I’m not denying that gays have been persecuted, but they are in no way persecuted at the rate and level that blacks were persecuted. Any history major can tell you that. I am black, so I think I can speak on whether or not gays have suffered the same plight as my family had just 50 years ago. You can hide your sexuality, but you can’t hide the color of your skin. The KKK was against anyone that was hetero, white, and Christian, but their main targets were not gays. Their main target was blacks and anyone that supported blacks. Blacks were enslaved, denied basic human rights, killed, lynched, constantly bullied, and told they don’t belong because of their skin color. I won’t deny that some gays may have had that happen, but they cannot claim the same level or hate as blacks had. I would argue that in America, gays have had their ‘rights’ pushed faster and more effectively than blacks. Blacks have had to fight, claw, and scratch for the basics. As far as history is concerned, gays have had at minimum the basics.

        I’l give you the social stigma at times, but nowadays, to call something Jim Crow is ridiculous. Gays are not fighting for basic rights, but for marriage rights. That is different. They claim marriage is a part of basic rights, but they can still get married. They just have to be married to the opposite gender.

        I don’t think Christians hate gays. Some might, but all of my friends and those I go to church with tell you the opposite. The ones that express hatred are in the minority. In fact, the permission of gay marriage is a growing thing in the church. I discriminate against views not people. Another piece of biblical advice. Neither thieves, liars, adulterers, homosexuals, coveters, greedy, drunkards, swindlers, or idolators will inherit the kingdom of God. Which is what some of us were until we were washed and sanctified by the blood of Christ. That means no one can enter. It doesn’t matter what your sin is. We have all done these things. If gay was not a sin, they would still fall short. Read the Bible before you spread false doctrine.

        • holzmantweed says:

          I find it bizarre that you think being killed, constantly bullied, or told you don’t belong differentiates Black experience from LGBT experience; or that it is part of the reality of “some” LGBT, rather than each and every LGBT. Similarly bizarre that you think the ability to pass as straight, the necessity of passing as straight to avoid being killed or bullied, is something separate from being killed or bullied — closets kill. Also similarly bizarre that you place fighting for equal marriage rights as something separate and distinct from “basic rights,” given that Loving v Virginia was ruled on in 1967, literally at the same time that basic rights such as freedom from discrimination in workplace, education, and public accommodation was being fought for.

  19. J.J. says:

    Gays should be removed from the earth and they will be soon enough. Gay is a mental disorder. And should be kept away from our children .

    • Beau says:

      Will this take place soon J.J.? I need to know how to pack, I guess it’ll be hot, so swimsuits, flip-flops and lots sinscreen for the kids. LOL Mental illness? You would know, crazy idiot. Thanks for playing.

    • SATAN says:

      Muahahaha! I love these little Christians that commit and say such hateful things in the name of “Gawd”! Keep doing my dirty work for me, my pretties. Soon, everyone in the world will hate Christianity! AHAHAHA!

  20. vivian Wagner says:

    This is a Financial (Lending) Organization. We are specialized in cash
    management and offering of Loans to interested individuals and companies
    who are seeking financial assistance and business growth or business
    expansion fund. We offer Loans with a dependable guarantee to all our
    qualified applicants.

    Our Loan Interest rates are very low and affordable and with a negotiable
    duration. We also provide funding for business partnership and real estate.
    We offer small and large amount of Loans to all our qualified clients.
    Name:
    Address:
    Country:
    Phone Number:
    Amount Needed:
    Loan Duration:
    Monthly Income :
    Age:
    Gender:
    Thank you for your time
    vivian.ewellfare@msn.com

    • Jackson says:

      Matt… Don’t look now, there’s a money changer in your Rambo Jesus Temple…. Thanks, Jackson

  21. What is mentioned here in this article is understandable, and of course the responses are expected as well.

    As for the race comparison, nothing new of course. That, as well as other comparisons, have been used here to defend against what is said in this article.

    The problem here is not really the issue of whether homosexuality itself is right or wrong, but whether being against it is right or wrong.

    With race for example, the core issue was a person’s color of skin, not an action. Whether a person drank from a fountain, got married, or whatever; none of these would have mattered at all if the colors were the same. They were as mentioned were only an issue due to the color of the person’s skin.

    With homosexuality, the core issue is not just a mere attribute like with color; it is an act, a sexual act at that, that is at hand. Many have disagreements on different acts, sexual or not, and that just makes it their taboos against such things. Just because a person is against something another is for does not necessarily mean they are being hateful or bigoted toward another person.

    Another difference between these two is the fact that one is a fact and the other is an opinion that is not proven of yet. Since it is an opinion or belief, then it should not be forced on another.

    Of course, this does not mean feelings cannot be hurt. Any time you disagree with someone else, someone’s feelings can always be hurt. That doesn’t give a person a right to sue someone just because they are offended by what someone says or does.

    In Sweden, there was a pastor that preached that homosexuality was a sin. Because someone was offended by this, they went to the police to get this guy arrested and tried in court. Of course, this was thrown out for obvious reasons, but nonetheless this should never have gone this far in the first place.

    Whether we like it or not, this is just one of many examples that some of those for homosexuality like in the examples mentioned in this article have tried to force their opinion or belief on others.

    There are always going to be businesses, let alone people, that are going to refuse business for one reason or another. Whether it be a personal opinion or belief of the business or person or just simply that they do not do those kind of services, does not necessarily mean they are being hateful, mean, cruel, unjust, bigoted, discriminating, or dehumanizing. It is just part of their person opinion or belief, and that they do not offer those kind of services.

    If the services are not offered by the business, then a person can just check elsewhere like some have had to do in the examples mentioned.

    Of course, like mentioned before, it does not guarantee that some will not be hurt or offended, let alone feel like they have been treated wrong; but just because someone feels this way does not mean it is so and justifies taking businesses, let alone people, to court over it.

    • Bam! says:

      Let me educate you on why so many people compare this to the blacks. Did black people choose to be black? No, they didn’t. Just like white people didn’t choose to be white. They can attempt to change their skin color, but they are still black(or white) underneath the surface. Did gay people choose to be gay? No, they didn’t. Just like straight people didn’t choose to be straight. They can attempt to change their sexual actions, but they are still gay(or straight) underneath the surface (unless they’re bi, of course).

      Should we force black people to become “white” just because we don’t like the fact that they were born black? I believe any logical person would say NO. Should we force gay people to become “straight” just because we don’t like the fact that they were born gay? Me being the sensible and logical person would say NO.

      Sadly, nowadays, we don’t have logical people. Maybe the majority of America should abandon religion and persecute those who practice it. Give the religious zealots a taste of their own medicine.

  22. Pingback: You Will Comply, Or Else » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

  23. lotenna says:

    Read a fascinating argument on the ’causes’ of homosexuality>>> http://lotenna.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/homosexuality-nature-vs-nurture/

  24. Nicole says:

    I understood and agreed with the article. The event and not the people were the issue here. For example I don’t agree with or participate in any events or ideals that involve the KKK. If I owned a business that made cakes and they wanted one for their next rally I would politely decline due to my own personally held beliefs of not wanting to be associated with that belief system. Does that make me a bigot or a hateful person? no that just means I will not be a participant in activities I don’t believe in. Am I equating Gay marriage with the activities of the KKK? no I just used an example of an activity that I disagree with and would deny service to. These people do not agree with Gay marriage and have the right to disagree and not participate in the event. Instead of incriminating them just go someplace else. it is really that easy

Comments are closed.