Wedding cake for a gay wedding

One thing is clear: the impact of this case will extend far beyond the wedding cake industry. Where is the line between discrimination and belief?


In a surprise announcement, the Supreme Court declared that it will rule on the case of a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

It all started in Denver, Colorado back in 2012, when a gay couple visited a local cake shop hoping to order a wedding cake. However, upon learning the nature of the ceremony, the owner refused to take their business. The case eventually went to court, where it has bounced around for the past 5 years. For a time, it seemed destined to stay in the lower courts.

Until now. The Supreme Court’s decision to take on the case has set up a heavyweight clash between the competing principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination. The outcome will likely create precedent that fundamentally shapes the future of religious expression in the U.S.

Jack Phillips is accused of discirminated against a gay couple

Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake.

The Uncompromising Baker

But let’s backtrack a bit. Here’s how it all went down:

When the couple walked into the store, owner Jack Phillips explained that he would be happy to sell them any of his baked goods, but could not in good conscience make a cake for their wedding. Doing so, he claimed, would violate his fundamental religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Phillips offered to direct the couple to another cake shop in the area that would happily take their business. But that wasn’t the point, they insisted – he had singled them out because they were gay.

Convinced they were being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, the gay couple filed a formal complaint against the baker. The case has been in the court system ever since.

Artistry or Bigotry?

When his cries of religious freedom seemed insufficient, Phillips found another argument to fall back on: freedom of speech. As a cakemaker, he says, his work represents a distinct form of art. Each cake is a piece of artwork — and by extension, an act of free speech that should be protected by the law. Phillips argues that he shouldn’t be compelled by the government to create art against his will.

As the case has moved through the courts, this secondary argument has proved to be effective. So much so, that lawyers for Mr. Phillips have now made it the primary justification for his refusal. In their words: “Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government.”

However, the couple has since countered with their own argument, insisting that they did not order any specific inscription or style to be made– merely that a cake be supplied. They didn’t force his artistic hand, they just asked for a stack of flour and frosting for their wedding.

The addition of Judge Neil Gorsuch could prove a deciding factor.

More Than Just a Cake

One thing is clear: the impact of this case will extend far beyond the wedding cake industry. It’s just one of many cases – involving everything from florists, to calligraphers, to wedding planners – that weighs freedom of expression against claims of discrimination. It’s a fundamental question: should business owners be allowed to deny services to people based on personal beliefs?

The ACLU has sided with the couple, arguing that “when businesses are open to the public, they’re supposed to be open to everyone.”

However, it’s not clear the Supreme Court will see it that way. With the recent addition of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court may be inclined to rule in favor of the baker.  With the decision not expected until later this year, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Whose side are you on?

 

444 comments

  1. John Eftimiades says:

    While I am happy same sex marriage is now the law of the land, I don’t believe businesses should not be allowed to refuse based on their religious beliefs. As I see it, it will be their loss from a business point of view. They are not on the side of History. But, their views should be respected.

    1. eric k says:

      John put it perfectly. Same sex marriage is a choice,but so is who a business serves

      1. William Clapie says:

        “we reserve the right to refuse customers” I have seen that posted in many places

        1. Tom says:

          William…makes me think of “Signs”, by the 5 man Electric Band…Tom

          1. William Clapie says:

            Signs, signs, signs, every where a sign?
            Yep, Looked into an airport lobby lately? I haven’t. The idea frightens me. We (that critter called human) have had choices forever! There have been outcasts, bullies, wise-men, herbalists, spiritual leaders, chaff (common folk that keep everything else moving) I think all that has changed is the immediacy of the issues and communication. I don’t like these thoughts. At what point civilization at what point George Orwell?

          2. Rev paul collins says:

            With our government being anti lgbtq thease people do not have a chance gay is making a choice a choice i respect

      2. Guy Warinner says:

        So you are saying the discrimination is the best policy. To me that is anti religious, it is not Your, mine or anyone else’s job in religion except for God but that is what discrimination is. The Bible says not to be that person not go out and do your best to punish them. If you do not want to serve everyone equally then be a private or club store. The fact that homosexuality has been found to be from medical as well as DNA issues rather than a choice of a person trying to be in league with the devil should be temper a persons homophobia but for most Christians the habit is just too hare to kick, it is like an addiction, someone to blame everything on when one believes that everything is controlled and made to happen by some God…

        1. William Clapie says:

          Thanks for that nightmare!

        2. John Owens says:

          Could you enlighten us on the evidence for DNA and medical issues causing homosexuality? I would LOVE to believe that, but have yet to see any convincing evidence. As for DNA, that flies in the face of evolution, and you can’t say it is a recessive gene, because people with recessive genes (green eyes, sickle cell anemia, etc.) breed as much as anyone else, while if a homosexual gene ever existed, they would by definition breed less, and over millennia would die out. I’d really like to know of a genetic or medical cause for it. That would mean we make it happen more often, or less, as the population waxes and wanes.

          1. Butterfly says:

            Gay men and gay women have been known to “breed” with heterosexual men and women .So John Owens, think before you post .

          2. Karen Giovetti says:

            Contrary to your comment regarding gay men protesting less than straight men, the stats don’t agree with you. The majority of gay men from my generation back usually tried a straight marriage & had just as many kids as their straight counterparts. Have you ever watched the movie “Brokeback Mountain”? Both men had kids. That’s just the way it was. From my kid’s generation where most closets are now out in the front yard, these men are STILL having kid with female friends or sometimes surrogate mothers. Look at Elton John & his husband. They have 2 or 3 kids now. And I know for a fact that many of the children with gay fathers are coming out as gay, even those raised away with no contact with their fathers.

          3. John Owens says:

            Protesting? Do you mean procreating? Just for fun, I’ll indulge your grasping at straws– how can men who breed for twenty-five or thirty years, and then decide they prefer little boys or whatever, on average, outbreed men who breed for 45-50 years or more? Over millennia, they would still be bred completely out of existence.

            And no, I did NOT watch Broke-Back Mountain, and never will, nor the Bird Cage, or Three Men and a Baby, or Junior, or Will and Grace, and I stopped watching 2 and 1/2 men after Ashton Crutcher took Charlie Sheen’s place and he and Alan “pretended” to be gay so they could adopt. Every one of those shows is just mind-control, like Bosom Buddies was mind control to PREPARE you for more mind control.

          4. Caleb says:

            OMG John, I pray for you brother. That is riddled with paranoia. “Free your mind and the rest will follow!”

          5. John Owens says:

            It may be paranoia, but it is also correct, Caleb. I saw it happening thirty years ago, before anyone else I knew, and now my grown children and nieces and brothers in law see that I was correct. “Just because I am paranoid does not mean they aren’t trying to kill me” Somebody said that. And, I tell you this, ” Just because I am dogmatic, does not mean I am wrong. If you were smart enough to argue with me, you would already agree with me.”

          6. John Owens says:

            Butterfly, they “breed” LESS frequently or for fewer years than heterosexuals, because they DO NOT DESIRE THE OPPOSITE SEX.

      3. joesph says:

        Sorry but a business is not a person its a place of work. The business is open to the public so it means you follow the laws of the land. The baker could have opened a private business where he could then choose to discriminate as he wishes. But he decided to open a public business because he wanted to public at larges money. So no he can not discriminate by state and federal law. Religious freedom is not reason enough to discriminate against Americans. Jesus did not discriminate so why does this baker think he should. Lack of faith is why. Jesus does not man to intervene for him.

        1. John Owens says:

          So, I’ll borrow LtBil Drat’s example: If a Black baker who happens to be one of the few living black people actually descended from slaves is approached by a member of the KKK and asked to prepare a cake for the KKK with KKK symbols on it, he has no right to refuse?

          Or, the 60 year old child of a Holocaust survivor is approached by a Neo-Nazi couple with swastika tattoos on their neck and is asked to prepare them a Nazi cake for their Nazi, white-supremist wedding, the Holocaust survivor’s child has no right to refuse?

          I don’t know what kind of fantasy world in which you live, but it isn’t planet Earth.

          1. Caleb says:

            Not the same. The KKK and Nazi scenarios you have pointed out opens up the issue of hate speech. That’s a whole other conversation.

          2. John Owens says:

            IF they are not using hate-speech (which is a nebulous concept, and only applicable when the left claims it, like now), then the hate-speech doesn’t apply at ALL, in the hypothetical cases I mentioned. You are only saying that because when a leftist discriminates, it is perfectly justifiable, but if the right does, it is not. THAT is what you are saying.

          3. John Owens says:

            You don’t think gay people have used hate speech against Christians? Again, on which planet do you live?

          4. Keith Ainsworth says:

            I find it difficult to believe that people seem to think that the baker has no right to refuse a job. His decision is not illegal, so how can he be forced to do something he doesn’t want to do. So much for the land of the free

          5. John Owens says:

            …and the cake is basically a work of art. An artist has to feel inspired. If he wasn’t, he wasn’t. You cannot legislate the muse.

          6. Caleb says:

            I believe the whole reason for the lawsuit is discrimination based on sexual orientation is the basis of the lawsuit. If the court finds that to be the case then the bakers broke the law. If it’s an expression of art and it’s protected by the first amendment than it’s not against the law.
            Using hate speech analogies and crying about what the left does and doesn’t do has no relevance here.
            Hate speech against Christians? Where did that come from?

          7. Karen Giovetti says:

            Your analogy is flawed because these men did not ask for ANY symbolism on their cake. Thus just wanted a plain old generic 3-tiered wedding cake with nothing more symbolic than flowers & leaves, noty even their names or figurines on top. But this was refused because it was to be used in a gay ceremony. That is patently discriminatory. End of story.

          8. John Owens says:

            Caleb, if you read the OTHER PEOPLE’s posts you can see hate against Christians. I have to go to my cave now, and paint stick figures on the wall. I’ll be back tomorrow.

          9. JOHN MAHER says:

            JOHN F. OWINS why NOT take YOUR HATE and EAT it ALONE or BETTER with the tRUMP UR both IGNORANT A Hs, even BETTER ask HIM for a JOB so U can STOP PANHANDLING and LIVING OFF the WORKING PEOPLE, MAYBE HE will get U work in RUSSIA, the BENEFITS there are SUPERB and U will have the DISGUST of MEETING with Vladimir Puto, DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP,GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

        2. John Owens says:

          He told them he would sell them any of his baked goods but could not in good conscience bake them a wedding cake. And again, there is no civil right to a wedding cake. How many times must you be told? This is not a civil right, so there was no discrimination in a LEGAL sense. This argument is ridiculous. If it had been a car lot and they had wanted to buy a muscle-car and the dealer said he would not sell it to them because they would probably get killed or hurt someone else, it would not be discrimination BECAUSE THERE IS NO RIGHT TO BUY A CAR GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION. You can’t just make up rights that don’t exist and bring them into reality by wishing and complaining.

          1. Caleb says:

            But if the car dealer said I won’t sell you a muscle car because you’re going to drive it to your same sex wedding. I will sell you a sedan because it’s not flashy and you won’t drive it to your wedding.
            No one asked him to be in the wedding, to go to the wedding, or even that he has to change his mind about his beliefs about same sex weddings. He owns a business in the public sector.
            Using religion as a basis to deny goods and services, really? What is his religion anyway?

          2. John Owens says:

            The fact remains– a cake is a luxury, not a basic need or right. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO LUXURY if it means making someone else provide it. Why is that difficult to grasp? Besides, certain groups are difficult to please, when it comes to business. You know, the CEO of STARBUCKS said publicly that if you support traditional marriage, STARBUCKS doesn’t need or want your business. I don’t hear any of the left complaining about THAT. Joseph here on ULC MONASTERY BLOG hasn’t found THAT suitable for blog discussion. That puts US at risk if we shop there, which we don’t, because it is way overpriced, plus there has been fecal matter found in their iced coffee drinks recently, but we are afraid they will intentionally contaminate the drinks if we shop there and they know we AREN’T GAY.

            It still isn’t discrimination. There is no RIGHT TO BUY OVER-PRICED COFFEE WITH FECAL MATTER IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

            I make my own, use turbinado or other natural sugar, and half-and-half. Costs me maybe 30 cents for a huge cup that lasts all day. No lawsuits. No crying. No hurt feelings. No fecal matter, and the STARBUCKS down the road still has enough idiots buying their contaminated overpriced stuff to do a thriving business so it’s a win/win for everyone.

          3. Caleb says:

            So water is a need. If someone wants to buy Aquafina instead of a cup of tap, it’s okay to say we don’t sell premium water to your kind? Because that’s what you’re saying.
            What’s this garbage you keep saying about the left? You bringing insignificant factors into the conversation.
            And the Starbucks CEO can believe whatever he wants, but the difference is he still maintains his beliefs while not turning away any customer based on who they are, who they love, or what they do.
            You seem to have some internal demons you are fighting with.
            I think you made need a Xanax and a hug!

          4. John Owens says:

            Never had a Xanax. Haven’t done any drugs since late seventies. Get hugs from family and biker buddies all the time. Demons cannot remain in my vicinity. You are a little one-sided here, but aren’t we all?

        3. Kim says:

          State say it’s a privilege to drive in there state. Its a privilege to beable to own a bussiness in a state.Its a privilege to have freedom in this country. If a place doesnt want your bussiness that is a given right it is not discrimation Just like if your not 21 you don’t have the privilege to drive or drink or own a gun It a privilege at what age to marry .

      4. Karen Giovetti says:

        Why is “same sex marriage” a choice? Being gay is NOT a choice, it is how the Creator makes some people & they are NOT junk or throw-away people. As such, being in love & wanting to become a family by being married is no more a “choice” than it was for me when I, a straight female wanted to marry the love of my life, my husband of 28 years.

        1. John Owens says:

          Let me get this straight: You don’t believe same sex attraction is a choice. I get that. Still, marriage IS a choice. Your marriage WAS a choice. Just saying. I mean, do flaming gay men talk differently because of some weird genetic quirk that no one can find? Or is it a choice? Do they wear their hair funny and dress and walk differently because they HAVE to, or is it a choice? Now, the crux of this is: DID THEY HAVE TO USE THAT ONE BAKERY? OR WAS IT A CHOICE? Did nature make them sue that baker, or was it a choice?

          I submit they made a lot of choices, the last one being to sue, and it was ill-conceived and those of you who support it should have to do something very onerous for someone you do not believe deserves it.

          1. Caleb says:

            “Flaming gay men”
            Definition please

          2. John Owens says:

            Someone usually unmistakably gay, due to their behavior, speech patterns, prissy walk, etc. I always think these men are really trying to hard to ACT gay, but who am I to judge? Not being unnaturally attracted to other men, I couldn’t possibly have any understanding of such things.

          3. Joseph E Knopick says:

            It is always a choice. I’d know.

          4. John Owens says:

            We may not be able to choose what we think is pretty, or smells good, or is sexy, but we can always choose what we do, unless we are forced by others to do something. That means we can choose what we daydream about, and with whom we flirt, and with whom we do business.

          5. William Clapie says:

            IE: Joseph E Knopick. “It is always a choice. I’d know”? Huh? You are then a god like being that determines sexuality? Wow. Or did you intend some other meaning and I owe you an apology?

          6. Caleb says:

            So a man who acts effeminate, is doing it purposefully? He’s choosing to do it? So a good deal, possibly the majority of gay men that possess small to many effeminate traits all just so happen to choose to act that way and coincidentally choose to be gay?
            Kind of sounds like John, you are giving support to science rather than blind choice.
            Furthermore unless a man is acting for some theatrical production, what benefits would choosing to be effeminate and gay would he gain?

          7. John Owens says:

            Well, Caleb, since I choose NOT to act that way and NOT to fantasize about another man, I cannot answer for those who do, as to why they do, but I can promise you there is nothing genetic to make them talk or walk differently in such a way as to IDENTIFY them. They may do it as a form of conformity to a group, like other groups may speak a certain way to more readily identify with one another. Everyone knows the accent and jargon help members of the same sub-cultures identify with one another, whether it is drug users, bikers, a church group, a political movement. It is entirely possible they do it as an advertisement, or to reinforce their own image of themselves. I would imagine that each person has slightly different psychological reasons for everything they do, with a few common underlying motivations. Are you actually going somewhere with your questions, or just grazing?

          8. Caleb says:

            “accent and jargon help members of the same sub-cultures identify with one another”
            That is the weakest argument I have heard yet.
            But I’m calling you on your promise that it’s not genetic…examples please
            And also, I find it strange that you have to choose to not fantasize about another man. Is that a hard thing for you to have to choose not to do?

          9. John Owens says:

            Accent and jargon are not an argument, Caleb. You know, you seem like someone who is trying awfully hard to appear smart or, tell himself that he is smart. You are trying too hard.

            And no, it is not difficult to choose not to think about other males. It is natural NOT to think about other males. It would be UNnatural to think about them. But if a man CHOOSES to think about other men, then that is his choice. I will share some wisdom with you, which you may not deserve. I have to do something else just this moment. I’ll be back.

          10. Caleb says:

            John you do understand in a debate you make an argument, and then you give facts, truths, evidence to support it correct? Your whole “accent and jargon” was in support of your argument regarding your effeminate men are doing it purposefully to conform nonsense.
            I am not trying to sound any more intelligent that I am but c’mon John, this is debate 101! You’re getting too distracted are you busy choosing to not fantasize about other men?

          11. John Owens says:

            That wasn’t an argument, Caleb. You asked a question. I was unsure of the answer, so I suggested a possibility. You don’t want to argue with me. I don’t want to argue with you. You seem far too young to argue with me.

        2. Keith Ainsworth says:

          I have no concern about the sexual preferences of others, they have nothing to do with me. In fact, I have been known to support gay people at times. But the baker has a choice whether to make a cake or not, and should be allowed to exercise that choice. To force hime to make it or sue him for hos decision is an infringement on his rights

          1. JOHN MAHER says:

            Mr. OWINS per CHANCE do U LIVE in San Francisco ??? FLOWERs in the AR, FLOWERS EVERYWHERE, EAT the CAKE and SHADDUP, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

        3. Hoss Green says:

          Karen you like everyone is entitled to your opinion whether I agree with it or not.
          I have heard the arguments, and Found they don’t hold up to muster. Look I love my friends, my children, and grandchildren, but I don’t want to have sex with them, or marry them. that would be perverted.
          In the Old Testament penalties were very harsh, and I don’t advocate for a return to that. In saying that it also addresses homosexuality in the New Testament, and I have to tell you God is not in favor of it. I sin everyday, and I am not proud of that fact, but I try not to go against the Lord.

          1. Guy Warinner says:

            Everyone needs a companion and if you are living as a couple and plan to live that way for ever then you want to leverage your options like taxes. First of all marriage is not a Christian thing, secondly to live by archaic laws created by a mythical God about a misunderstanding of homosexuality, is an excuse for not understanding that no one in their right mind would choose to be mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against because they want to be mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against and is the all time excuse for not understanding that it is in their genetic make up but by not understanding genetics you would rather play the martyr saying since you don’t want to be a homosexual then it must be a choice. Your reasoning and ideas are like a 5 year child everything is black or white…

          2. John Owens says:

            Very sweet and humble comments, Hoss, and truthful. Some will still call you a hater, because their eyes are blinded by the false light of Satan. Your sincerity and humility should commend you to all people.

          3. John Owens says:

            Please, Guy, PLEASE show us some DNA evidence. PLEASE! Then tell me how that DNA survived evolution. That is such a contradiction it cannot be overcome, and you KNOW it.

            I don’t know about whom you speak that is playing a martyr here. You make out like homosexuals are some kind of martyrs. They aren’t. Sometimes they are victims, but not martyrs. Freddy Mercury didn’t die for me or for you. They’re just people. You are endowing them with extra … what? I’m not sure. I am referring to them like people. I have an idea, support Islam, and then find out what hate is, what being judgmental is. I’m not hating on homosexuals. You are hating on me and anyone who tries to do what is right. I care for homosexuals. I just don’t tell them they are God’s gift to humanity, but neither do I claim to be God’s gift, myself.

            You seem to hate God and anyone who tries to learn from God, so you accuse people of childishness. You are the one being petulant one here. Everybody sees that except for you. I seldom pray for others, because it is up to me to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, but I will pray for people like you, that you do not heap damnation on your own head with your profanity and blasphemy. You are the one saying things are black and white. I never said that. You keep attributing YOUR faults to others, so that instead of making their points, they defend themselves from your slanders, but that kind of sophomoric silliness won’t wash here. Most of us are adults here, with a few exceptions, you being the one in my face at present.

          4. Caleb says:

            Actually John, Guy seems to be pretty spot on. So he doesn’t believe in the same higher power as you, that doesn’t make him a hater. He’s simply pointing out how some people that claim to love God and follow Jesus are letting these beliefs legitimize thier opinions that homosexuals are sinners just for being homosexual.
            He makes a great point, especially when these same people while using their religion to cast their judgement and calling a group of people sinners and speaking for God while at the same time their religion’s main premise is do unto others as you’d have done to you. And judge not lest ye be judged is kind of an important part of that too.

          5. Caleb says:

            Also John while there is no definitive gene or 100% undeniable truth that gay people are born that way, but there is a heck of a lot of scientific evidence that supports that hypothesis. Where as there is zero evidence of the contrary. Only the writings of men centuries ago, claiming to be speaking for God. Hmmm wonder which makes more logical sense to believe.

          6. John Owens says:

            What is this scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis of which you speak? I would love to know more, and I just KNOW how much liberals LOVE the FACTS!

          7. Caleb says:

            First of all John, I didn’t say I was liberal but I do like facts. You seem to have a chip on your shoulders against liberals or people that deal in facts in general.
            Google “is gay a choice” you’ll find an oped by a gay many and many, many articles citing studies and claims that help substantiate the hypothesis that it is not a simple choice. There’s been plenty of studies that show it to be evident in around 1500 species.
            Where is one peice of anything, anything that would help prove it to be a choice?

          8. John Owens says:

            Nobody said it is a “simple choice”. Our human libidos are anything but simple, Caleb. Only an idiot would think you could just one day decide, I will be straight or I will be gay. It is not at all one decision. Similar to a wedding vow. I will be faithful. That is a pronouncement, a decision, declaration, but, when a temptation comes, and it will, you will have to decide again, and later, again, and again, I will be faithful.

            I understood this about our libidos after my first wife died. I was still relatively young, 45, and after a grieving period, I decided to look around at women. I was not looking for a woman who actually looked like her, but I found that, if they did not have some superficial resemblance, I was not attracted. You see, I had been choosing to fantasize about her for 27 years (25 of them married to her). I could elaborate more on this, and the fact that our sexual quirks evolve over the years should at least SUGGEST this to everyone.

            It is not ONE decision, Caleb, not ONE choice, and I never said they CHOOSE to be gay. I said, they choose to walk and talk the way they do.

            And there is no male mammal that will PREFER another male when there is a female in estrous available. So, those “scientific studies” are garbage, meant to assuage society’s guilt, which they shouldn’t feel, if there were anything natural about it. Besides that, most other species are guided by instinct and hormones only. Humans have intellect, but still, you put a horny male hamster in a cage with a female hamster in estrous and another male, and he’s going for the female. A male billy-goat will nail anything he can mount regardless of species when he is in rut, but he has no preference toward other males or even other goats. He will mount a dog, a deer, a person if he gets a chance.

          9. John Owens says:

            Caleb, you say Guy is spot on, when he is espousing hate for Christians and calling them all haters, oh, except for the ones who are enablers. They’re not haters. They’re just NORMAL, GOOD people. Give it a rest. The Christians aren’t the ones making scenes, but just keep pushing them. They will.

          10. Guy Warinner says:

            John and the rest that asked about DNA and homosexuality well here you go. The first one talks about the DNA difference between twins where one is gay and the other is straight. The second article talked about how prescriptions given to the mother during pregnancy (i.e. a female fetus receiving male hormones or the reverse for males tends to lead to transgender and homosexuality because they are getting two different messages from their body. actually alters the DNA. Both tend to lead to homosexuality.
            ===
            http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html
            ===
            http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

          11. Guy Warinner says:

            John I am not espousing hate for Christians if someone wants to believe in and worship mythology it is no skin off of my nose, i could care less, it is what they do using their religion as a weapon against who ever they deem the right to judge and punish. The saddest thing is that if someone does not believe in myths and has overcome their indoctrination\brainwashing from birth theist seem to think it is hate and it has nothing to do with hate but to do with reality. I chased religion for over 30 years and it is all archaic views of how the world works and not how the world really works. For instance the night is not a blanket of God thrown over the world and the stars were tiny holes in the blanket, this was the Ancient Semitic Hebrew view of night. Logic dictates that I have to dismiss this belief just like I analyze and either accept or dismiss possible historical events of the OT. The NT is just a Greek book written for the Romans to try keep the Ancient Semitic Hebrew from revolting. Like it says, “Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” which says it all…

          12. Caleb says:

            Guy didn’t say he hates Christians, that I read.
            Sorry to hear about your wife. I hate that for you.
            If you want to disbelieve science that is your right.

          13. John Owens says:

            I believe science. I just don’t believe junk science, and so far, I have heard no credible evidence AT ALL to suggest that homosexuality is something with which a person is born. If you have some evidence, or know of some, just tell me what it is, or you don’t believe in science, either– You believe in myth, fables, junk. Don’t try to pretend that I am ignorant because I don’t accept science that has NOT been presented. Thus far, it HAS NOT been presented, and if a person accepts evolution (which I partially accept, just not as an origin of gena or phyla), then the idea that a hidden gene could have survived millions of years among people who prefer their own gender is totally contradictory.

          14. John Owens says:

            That stuff in the DNA Guy is talking about is unnatural. If that is what “causes” homosexuality it is an induced mutation and can be prevented. It could also be reversed. It all sounds like BS to me, but I haven’t had time to read the articles, being at work. Don’t think I won’t, but I’m still very skeptical at this point.

          15. Caleb says:

            John, Guy just gave you a link. This is one of thousands of studies into the matter. There is a lot of data indicating it is partly if not all genetic. I told you if you needed more studies to google “is being gay a choice.” If you’re too lazy to do any research then you can demand that it “IS A CHOICE.”
            Why are you so sure? You’ve given NO theories backed up with data to support this claim that you are so sure you are correct on! Where is anything to support your claim?
            It you want to know if it is a choice for sure, then ask someone who is gay.

          16. John Owens says:

            I went to the link but at first glance it appears like one of those phony studies that show hamsters humping each other because there is not a hamster of the other gender present. I posted that I will have to look at after work when I can read it carefully and then research the claims there. I’ll save the link, but just plain reason like 1+1=2 would SUGGEST that it cannot be genetic. And the circumstances Guy speaks of in those studies are NOT natural circumstances, so it is not as you say, “partly if not all genetic”. If an unborn embryo has to be acted upon by an external agent in order to create this condition, there is nothing natural about it. That would render the whole condition UNNATURAL, which is a term offensive to gay people. But, I photographed the links and I will look at them when I am home on my time on wifi.

          17. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens long before doctors were giving drugs that causes gender identity it was just DNA that caused homosexuality. Medical Journals and Books give a wonderful insight to a world of issues that humans have caused…

          18. John Owens says:

            So, since you believe in logic, Guy, how in the heck could there be a homosexual gene, and why is there no evidence of it?

          19. Caleb says:

            See my other post that lists three studies. Since you aren’t going to read Guy’s two studies, even though all you have to do is click and then read.
            Bigger question is what scientific studies to do have to back up your hell bent opinion that it is not genetic?
            And why, I can’t believe I didn’t ask you before, why is it so important to you to not believe that homosexality is biological? I mean you are hell bent, why is it so important to you?

          20. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens, your overwhelming ignorance and lack of knowledge astounds me. I never said there was a homosexual gene, that is just the stupidest thing you have said so far. So far you are the only one that thinks if we say DNA it must mean we think there is a homosexual gene. Genes do not work that way they are just road maps for various parts of your body to be built and how you function and think; and if for some reason you get a Chromosome (Chromosomes are made up of genes) or set of chromosomes that make you function or think like a female is it the fault of that person that has this abnormality that is different his physical sex…

          21. John Owens says:

            Either way, you are full of pre-digested beans, Guy. It is not genetic. It is not in DNA. There are other factors, and I have not ONCE condemned anyone for their sexual preference or proclivity on this blog, even though a couple of jerks try to pretend that I have. If you will stop pretending there is anything scientific about the MYTH that there IS something in DNA that causes it, I will stop showing you how dumb it is to think that. That’s my best offer, Hominis Cavus.

          22. Caleb says:

            What makes you think it’s a myth?

      5. Jesse James says:

        The whole world seems to be in anarchy where everything is fine and do it If you want. With the current morality prevailing we shall fall as the Roman empire did. I believe a lot of children are being influenced that it is ok if a young girl like another young girl, and at an age where sexuality should not even be brought up. I could go on and on, but I’m sure everyone gets my point.

        1. John Owens says:

          They do, and they know you are correct, but they are trying to prove something to themselves, and will insist you are wrong, knowing you are not.

          1. John Benson says:

            F.Y.I For 2000 years there have been non beleivers of the Bible trying to discredit it truths without much success! Every prophesy has happened…happening as we speak…and the future is presented in length. The only thing it doesn’t tell us is when Jesus will return. I ask that you study Revelation and see for yourself what’s happening today and was written 2000 years ago. When a book is batting 1000 and has been on the top selling book lists since the invention of the printing press, that says something about its validity…worth a peek!
            The one thing that the Word of God does say is that LOVE is the greatest commandment of all!
            I believe the Lord will return as he states in his word, I pray we’re all ready when He does!
            May God Bless You All!

          2. Guy Warinner says:

            John Benson, I have no idea what world you have been living on because you are balmy thinking that all of those predictions were right on. This is a list of failed prophesies…
            ===
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

          3. John Owens says:

            Thank you for that ringing endorsement, John Benson.

          4. John Owens says:

            Wiki’s very first “disproof” of a prophecy is based on misreading the name of the Babylonian king in the prophecy. They mistook Nebuchadnezzar for Nebuchadrezzar. Most skeptics wouldn’t notice that discrepancy.

            The second, regarding Egypt, is for a time still in the future, as is a LOT of the book of Ezekiel. Just because something has not happened does not mean it can not still happen.

            The third, regarding the Nile, same thing. Just because it has not happened does not mean it WILL not.

            I could go on, but Solomon said to cast not your pearls before swine. I’m not calling anyone a pig– it illustrates a principle, not to waste effort doing things for people who will never appreciate them.

            I’d like to point out that the gay couple could be TOTALLY CRYING WOLF, like young people caught doing something wrong, and then cry racism or some other discrimination in order to mitigate their offense.

          5. John Benson says:

            Come on Guy, do you believe everything you read on the internet? I can point you in a 100 spots that prove its truth! That’s what Faith is all about…I believe..you don’t have to…we make our own choices in life.
            I still don’t look down on anyone, nor do I think I’m better than anyone else…your listening to religions, who like to judge, and not Jesus Christ! My God LOVES all and has left the loving back to us!
            I try my best to love everyone, even if I don’t agree or believe in what you might, God gives us free will to make our own choices! I made mine for the Lord!
            I wish you well, Guy, May God Bless you!

          6. Guy Warinner says:

            John Benson Try reading a book sometime, we are on the internet so I have to give you links to sites that discuss what I have read in medical journals and books. Reading is good for you…

          7. John Benson says:

            Thanks Guy for that great tip…I’ll try reading more…maybe I can be just like you when I grow up!
            One problem, I can’t find anything credible to prove your point without twisting wording to suit your case. But I promise to keep trying, again thanks for the tip!

          8. Guy Warinner says:

            John Benson, your problem seems to be that you don’t understand science so you would rather base your whole philosophy on an Archaic Myth and laws, you know just like ISIS is doing, basing their philosophy on an archaic mythology and laws. Oh by the way Islam, Judaism and Christianity all come from the same origins the Abrahamic Religions.
            Back to the point, there have been major studies in America and Europe that shows the more extreme one’s religious views are the less they can distinguish between fact and fantasy because they are basing their philosophy on paradoxes which the Abrahamic Religions are filled with.
            Man has only one thing that is used to understand the world and religion cannot abide and that is logic, if you do not use logic to understand the world you are basing your whole philosophy on wishful thinking.
            You like 99% of the theist in this world are controlled by the indoctrination\brainwashing you got from birth, and you like many Christians have had no choice in whether to believe in religion or not, you have never had the choice. Like so many theist you are like a robot, judging and punishing without any logical basis but laws based on ignorance and lack of knowledge. I don’t care if you believe and worship myths it is the mindless actions of theist that I detest and fight against.
            So far in my life I have never met a theist that could answer this question and like all other theist you will go around the mountain to say nothing but I will ask it anyway. The only requirements is to be logical and truthful (that is if you can as 90% of theist believe that lying to support their religion is not a sin but lying is (another paradox))…
            ===
            Question: When did you decide to become a theist to follow what ever your religion is…?

          9. John Benson says:

            That’s my point Guy, I don’t have a religion…those are man made!
            I believe in Jesus Christ, not a mythical creature, a living God!
            In my life it has been proven to me on several occasions that God does exist! If you don’t want to believe, that’s your right, why can’t I have the right to my beleifs?
            You also seem to want to continue this childish back and forth just to prove your right and I’m crazy! Hell, I am! Ha Ha!
            I respect your opinion, I don’t have to agree.

            If I believe in the Bible that’s my right…even if you think I’m crazy! There are roughly 2 billion other crazy people out there that believe just like me
            That’s what makes this a great country…we don’t have to agree and believe what the other guy does. But we should respect one another.

            On several posts I’ve wished you well and again…God Bless you!

          10. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens, no one has actual free will. First of all the existence of a God and free will are mutually exclusive. Secondly we all make choices based on our experiences, knowledge, and philosophy. Free will would mean that you actually have no choices based on experience, knowledge and philosophy but are random choices because to have free will you cannot base a choice on anything or it is not free will…

        2. Guy Warinner says:

          John Benson, I don’t care if you believe in a God or not that is not the point it is how theist (yes you do have a religion, get a dictionary) treat others either that have other religious affiliations whether one of the Abrahamic Polytheistic Religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism( polytheistic as they have multiple Gods, Satan and the other angels is actually what you would call a demigod because of the powers they have)), non-Abrahamic Religions or other philosophical points of view. Theist and especially those of the Abrahamic Religions always expecting that they have a special privileged because they believe in a God. The absurd arrogance of most of the followers of the Abrahamic Polytheistic Religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism), their lack of knowledge of what the Bible actually says and where it came from historically, their discriminatory actions of all others that don’t belong to their cult (All religions are nothing more than cults), their absurd ability to think that if the Bible says it bad it is their job to judge and punish, their ability to disregard provable facts that negate parts of the Bible to the point of willing to have their children go out in the world of today basically completely uneducated in any field of endeavor today except McDonalds.
          It is not one’s beliefs system that appalls me it is their actions.
          ===
          Spoiler Alert – Actual historical facts
          ===
          You might not like to relate to this but originally there was no Heaven in the Bible the followers of the Abrahamic Polytheistic Religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) believed that all souls go to Gehenna which was a dark pit. the idea of a heaven is a Greek invention, there was no world wide flood and Lazarus was either not dead, or never was revived or the story is an embellishment on some minor event.

          1. John Benson says:

            WOW! At first I thought maybe you were pulling my leg….you think I’m crazy!!!!
            I believe its time I leave this forum, I thought this was a Ministry!
            I wish you well!

          2. John Owens says:

            I see the source of your confusion, now, Guy. I’ve had to read several of your posts but you kept giving me little clues and it took me a while to put it together:

            You seem to think that ALL members of ALL REAL churches are selfish, ignorant, bigoted, judgmental, high-minded shmucks, and that EVERYONE ELSE is noble, educated, open-minded, altruistic New Age superior human beings, ready for the next step in evolution.

            That is what is happening with this goofy cake flap– People on your side of it think the baker was mean-spirited, bigoted, judgmental, and ignorant (had to be, since he doesn’t think gay marriage is fantastic idea, right?) At the same time, people on your side of this think the gay couple were sweet, loving, honest, kind, noble people full of love and goodness (had to be, right? I mean, they ARE gay and WERE going to marry).

            Your trouble is, your point of view is bigoted and lop-sided, poisoned by your vanity. Your point of view is not that of a wise man, or a BALANCED MAN, but that of a radical, a sociopath, similar to a true Maoist or Nazi, Antifa, perhaps. You don’t accept God, that’s fine. He knows you. Your biggest obstacle to true intelligence is your own inflated opinion of yourself, as though YOU know things the rest of the world does NOT. There may be some little insignificant tidbit you see that others don’t, but what you are missing is the BIG PICTURE. The big picture says you are just another ant on an anthill, and no better than the other ants.

            I submit to you for consideration that the baker is NOT an evil Christian and the gay couple are not perfectly wonderful people. Just permit yourself to ruminate that possibility.

        3. Guy Warinner says:

          John Benson, yes I think your insane but not the insanity that you think I am saying. You suffer from paradoxical insanity. What is Paradoxical Insanity; it is the inability to separate fact from fiction or myth. You believe in paradoxes and adhere to them because of indoctrination\brainwashing from birth.The more extreme a theist believes in these paradoxes it get harder for them to distinguish the difference between fact from fiction or myth.
          You seem to think that if a Christian can’t judge and punish freely then they are being discriminated against. You don’t follow the Biblical teaching of the NT very much (you said you believed in Jesus Christ which the whole NT is all about), you will say you do; but putting the onus on the homosexual as the person that is at fault because they are homosexual is taking paradoxical insanity too far because you cannot use logic to support you point of view so you and the baker rely on deflection of this real issue of discrimination and try to turn it into religious repression rather than exactly what it really is DISCRIMINATION and breaking the law. Wait isn’t breaking the law a sin, isn’t giving not succor to all a sin, isn’t discrimination a sin, isn’t bearing false witness a sin?
          Theist always believe that if they sin against someone that is admonished for their beliefs or actions in the Bible that it stops being a sin and become praising the lord, the problem is that you and the baker are sinning as much as the gay couple but the gay couple have an excuse they have been mentally wired in reverse and is not their fault but on the other hand both your’s and the baker’s actions were premeditated sinning and I would bet not one of you asked forgiveness for sinning against the gay couple…

          1. John Owens says:

            Paradox. That’s it. I usually call it conflict. Cognitive dissonance. Something like that. Like when you believe in evolution but also believe in a gay gene. Why would evolution produce a self-destructive gene like that? One that will snuff itself out in a few thousand years? Here’s a paradox: You don’t believe in the Bible, but you want to preach the Bible. You don’t believe in Christianity, yet you want to tell Christians how to be Christians. I’ll bet you support gun-confiscation AND abortion. That’s a big paradox to me. I’ll bet you want a high-paying job with little work involved, and yet support socialism. That’s a paradox.

            Here’s one: you keep talking about Christians like you know them so well, but obviously you don’t, because YOU THINK YOU ARE BETTER THAN THEM. That is proof you don’t know any very well. That would be like me judging all Chinese women by my experience with my ex-wife. I refuse to do that. Individuals are individuals, while those who belong to the same groups will have certain things in common, YOU ARE PAINTING ALL CHRISTIANS WITH YOUR OWN DARK BRUSH BECAUSE OF A HATRED OF CHRISTIANS. THAT MEANS YOU CANNOT TELL CHRISTIANS HOW TO BE CHRISTIANS, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ONE.

            If you would like to be our leader, you will have to change your ways, your attitude, and SHOW us the love you say we lack.

          2. Caleb says:

            I tend to side with Guy on the “goofy cake flap” thing. I personally (“his side”) can say I don’t believe the baker is all of those things or the gay couple are all of those things. I don’t know any of them. I’m just going by what I’ve read and the CO law.
            So I would suggest John, not to be rude but if you want your opinion to be valued you should stop with the us vs them nonsense. There are not two solid opinions on these people. Some may think the baker is evil to the core and the couple are flawless crusaders, but I think most of us on wherever we stand on this issue, are probably somewhat neutral on how we see these people. (Most people in general, obviously not everyone on this post). We can only go by what facts we have.
            The fact that the baker would use his religion to prop up his refusal of service is very hypocritical to the grand message of Christ. The baker is a Christian right? So he should put Jesus’s words and teachings first. The baker according to the facts of the case, did not “do unto others as he’d have done unto him.” Unless the baker himself had been refused service somewhere and was perfectly fine with being treated as a second class citizen. It is apparent this didn’t happen or he would be sure to let the world know it happened to him and he didn’t sue.
            So I think at worse the baker has demonstrated that he is a cafeteria christian, by picking what he chooses to believe and what he chooses not to. Maybe even a
            hyochrit-ian, talking the talk not walking the walk.

          3. Caleb says:

            Now that I think about it, I don’t think Guy ever called any of those people those things.

          4. John Owens says:

            When people just want to argue for argument’s sake and right/wrong, truth/justice don’t enter into their argument, there is no reason why upstanding people should care what their opinion is or what those people value. The chaff means nothing to the wheat and henceforth you are on iggy for talking like a twerp and a twit. You and your hero can sext each other on the side.

          5. Caleb says:

            That’s you best post yet, John. Congrats on having the maturity and mentality of a ten year old! You’re a great Christian for how you call your fellow man that you’ve never met, names. Good job Johnny Boy!
            Oh wait I forgot you are admittedly and upstanding citizen that doesn’t care about your own opinion or values.

          6. Guy Warinner says:

            John, oh yes I can I studied and was a Christian for almost thirty year, no I don’t mean that I was just a Christian that went to church I read the Bible from cover to cover several times, I read all of the lost books of the Bible, I have read both the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, some of the Qur’an, most of the Torah and Talmud and those were the first thing that led me to atheism. The second was classes in logic and philosophy at the University of Southern California at Long Beach along with my classes on history and archaeology and a minor in psychology and geology, 25+ credits a semester was a lot of hard work. So I do have a good idea of what and who you really are from your witless remarks and your desire to discriminate all that displease you…

          7. John Owens says:

            So, you are a dissatisfied, disgruntled “ex-Christian” who has read a lot of pagan literature and so that makes you think you can judge me harshly as if you know me. YOU sir, are the hater and the hypocrite here. The God you claim is a myth will judge you harshly because you say you can see. Therefore, you have no excuse for blindness. Your heart is like a lump of coal, but you judge others as though you have a soft heart full of caring. Inwardly you are empty and spiteful. I pity you and anyone who falls for any of the garbage you so casually strew across this screen.

          8. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens I judge you by your posts and the inability for you to see anything beyond your eyelashes. I am not disgruntled nor dissatisfied just another failure on your part. To be an intelligent person you have to use your mind and think. You have to weight the evidence in an objective way and without any bias, then you make a choice. You cannot do that you are so completely compromised by the lack of any logic or rational thinking. In fact I don’t think you can think for yourself at all, you need to be told by your pastor or priest what to think. That is the problem with religion it tends to stop all actual logical and rational thinking process and replace with nothing…

          9. John Owens says:

            As if you are capable of doing anything without bias in your bitterness, Hominis Cavus.

          10. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens talking to you is like talking to a wall and a wall has less than nothing to say and believes in nothing…

          11. John Owens says:

            Blah blah blah, yada, yada. More goon babble.

          12. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens is now talking with the mentality of a baby because he cannot get his bigoted and discriminatory ideas to be accepted and has now gone to baby talk…

          13. John Owens says:

            …and here’s Hollow Man Guy with the standard brainless drivel that oozes out of the mouth of a leftist. Let’s see.. Yep, There it is. Bigoted because I point out the fallacies in his rants and discriminatory because I don’t agree with him. Or the other way around, either way. It’s just goon babble. His pet Chihuahua Tiny Man will probably chime in in a bit, also. Just showing how immature and unbalanced they are. Perhaps we could set up a Go Fund Me account to get them in a halfway house somewhere together.

          14. Guy Warinner says:

            That is a laugh, so what fallacies did you point out with the blog “Dee dee dee, dah, dah dah. More sick drooling. Yada, yada.” that you posted other than to make your look more pitiful as a human. The Law, The Constitution and the Bible say it was discrimination. Three strikes your out, another complete failure as a man but a great future as a bigot. I am sure the KKK would love to have you join them…?

          15. John Owens says:

            I’m going to humor this sick little puppy for just a minute– the BIGGEST FALLACY that I have successfully, repeatedly refuted, is that being gay is caused by something in DNA.

            From the beginning, MY POSITION had nothing to do with gay or not gay, religious or not religious. My position is that if the man does not want to bake the cake, he doesn’t have to bake the cake. Not for a gay wedding, not for a Moslem wedding, not for a Catholic wedding.

            In arguing that he DID have to bake it, Hominis Cavus here said more than once that being homosexual was in the DNA. I don’t care where it is, but there is NO evidence to believe that it is in the DNA. If it were, then identical twins (who, in case you do not know, as apparently Hominis Cavus does not, share identical DNA) would BOTH be either straight, or homosexual. As it turns out, in pairs of identical twins where ONE of them is homosexual, in the U.S., among male identical twins, the other is homosexual only 7.7% of the time. In females the number is even lower, about 5.3%. You have to look at the flip side of those numbers to see what a huge fallacy that is. 92.7% in males and 94.7% in females. Since we are talking about IDENTICAL twins, that means the DNA is IDENTICAL in both twins, so it is not a factor AT ALL.

            The percentages in Australia are slightly higher (3.5-4% higher), and the sample group is huge, so that would STRONGLY suggest that ENVIRONMENTAL factors, such as culture, mores, availability of suitable partners, perhaps religion or lack of it, are the only obvious contributors, and it is illogical to think otherwise.

            I’m sure the baby will come back with more insults, KKK, etc. (from whence came that. if not from his dark stereotypical leftist paranoid fantasies?) Poor little bigoted man.

          16. Guy Warinner says:

            Listen John Owen or male matrem suam it is illegal for him to be holding a business license and discriminating or not wanting to bake a wedding cake for anyone without a legal reason. First of all America is not a Christian State, we have not state religion, whether you like it or not. If he wants to have a private clientele he need to be registered as a private bakery with a registry of members. Like most stupid people think that it is OK to break the law just because they feel like it, well it isn’t all right and the baker is guilty of breaking the law for purulent reasons and not reasons that would exempt the baker from baking the cake. Religion is not a reason for discrimination nor refusing a public service. It is people like you that create hate from ignorance and lack of intelligence and try and spread your hate to all you meet…

          17. John Owens says:

            More sour pablum from the dude whose mother denied him her tiny breast. I have to INFORM you, it is not ignorant to be skeptical or just to have a different interpretation of the same information. What IS ignorant is thinking you are better than others OR smarter, which is what YOU do. And, even when you try to call names without actually calling names, you look so silly and immature and sophomoric.

            If you weren’t afraid or challenged by my opinions and reasoning, you could ignore it, but you aren’t able to do that, because of that nagging in your head that tells you that I am speaking the truth and you are afraid that everyone else reading this (all 5 of them) KNOWS that I am speaking the truth.

            Keep up the good work. Everyone except you already knows how delusional you are.

    2. HSW says:

      Thankfully you weren’t among those who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many believed then that businesses shouldn’t have to serve blacks, Jews, and in some cases even unaccompanied women. Little remembered fact – women were put into the act with the expectation that prohibiting discrimination against women was so absurd that it would kill the act.

      So…how is it different discriminating against a gay couple or a black couple? And before you say being gay is a choice, it’s absolutely not, so don’t bother going there.

      1. John Eftimiades says:

        No, definitely not a choice. The people who choose to discriminate based on their religious views are in the minority. Fortunately gays today have choices other than the myopic view of the few that choose to dig in their heelsand live in the past.

        Interesting point about the addition of women into the civil rights act. Didn’t know that.

      2. John Dorsey says:

        Amen.

      3. eric k says:

        good point

      4. Guy Warinner says:

        Discrimination is illegal by the law and in the Bible so it is very confusing to an atheist to try and understand a Christian POV that changes every which way the wind blows…

    3. JOHN MAHER says:

      WHO do these CAKE F..KT..Ds think they ARE tRUMP, WE HAVE LAWs i this GREAT COUNTRY,DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

      1. Ray says:

        Sir, could you please use correct gammar in your pointless rant ?

        1. JOHN MAHER says:

          RAY can U please CK* UR SPELLING in UR POINTLESS COMMENT, TOUCHE’ DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of a

        2. Jesse James says:

          And quit using Caps !

          1. JOHN MAHER says:

            GET A GUN and a RED CAP from tRUMPJESSE JAMES, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

      2. silentfilms101 says:

        Agree with you 110%. Also, happy to see another person is using tRUMP on postings. I’ve been using that spelling since he started running, even before the election. Pleased to see others have the same action when mentioning him. Back in the 70s I always typed (pre-Internet) niXon when ‘speaking’ about *that* guy. Also, have used ‘ w ‘ about another one. Truly glad to see you and I are on the same page of spelling about this current DC guy. 😀

        1. LtBil Drat says:

          I know right? I still use Obozo and Killary. These politicians deserve their monikers.

        2. Guy Warinner says:

          I prefer the moniker Dictator Donald T Rump because he is such an ASS…

    4. Ecumenical Fellowship Church says:

      There is a number of views on same sex marriages, and we have several same sex couples in our church. However some people are difficult. So if the grouchy man pictured above doesn’t want to bake you a cake, then go to a different bakery. Its his loss as you are taking your money elsewhere. There is no point in sewing as this will not change his views. Just pray for the grouchy baker.

      1. William Clapie says:

        This shouldn’t even be a news article. He offered to sell them any cake. The could then have bought a wedding cake and placed there on items on it. Also, he offered a store choice. This is a silly “ass” article meant to instill argument and to try to open festering pockets of hate.

        1. HSW says:

          You seem to have missed the part about “open festering pockets of hate” already existing, and now even becoming “open” rather than living in the shadows. The KKK is a thing again, and people are being told “Trump is president so I’m safe.”

          There is no need to “try” – those festering pockets of hate are all around us.

          1. John Owens says:

            You just made up the thing about people being told, “Trump is president so I’m safe.” That is pure conjecture with no basis in fact.

          2. William Clapie says:

            Hum. Point conceded for now. What I was implying by that statement is that particular “festering pocket of hate” would be this gentleman’s store and any like him that choose how they work. Remember the great “Art supply debate”? Health issues, “abortions regardless of reason” were against the religion of the store owners so, they dis-allowed any insurance that would cover that particular thing. ( my memory doesn’t work well, I may have mixed the details, but the point is there”. Religious beliefs affected the healthcare system and workers in that business. I DON’T agree, However and again, it is a business choice by the owners. If no one likes it, don’t shop/work there. Sad really. Not that long ago many of us would support our neighbors. Now it seems to be a goal to just beat people up one way or another.

        2. William Clapie says:

          I apologize for my misused spellings. I rely far to much on auto-correct. (there-their). Makes me seem to be a grade schooler. Again, my apologies.

          1. John Owens says:

            Not that big a deal, William. I am a compulsive proof-reader, and I make mistakes myself, and auto-correct is a bain to my existence, since it will correct words that already are correct, just not normal to the computer’s vocabulary. I will sometimes leave a -d off a preterite verb or past participle, just because I think I’m on a roll. Only a geek would make a big deal over the occasional misspelled or misused word.

      2. HSW says:

        The point of “sewing” (suing) wasn’t to change his views – it was/is to create specific case law stating that what he did is illegal. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t cover homosexuality as a protected class, as society hadn’t evolved that far at that point. It has now – but there is enough resistance that LGBT individuals need to be included as a protected class. Laws and courts never change minds, but they can change behavior, which is what this was/is about.

    5. William Clapie says:

      Yay! In my humble opinion you sir are a “right” thinker. Most businesses have some form of the “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” line. It may cost some money, but that is up to the business!

      1. Guy Warinner says:

        The problem with that is that it is voided when discrimination is involved. It mostly pertains to the actions of a customer and not their religion…

    6. Karen Giovetti says:

      I believe (as a retired business owner) that if you choose to serve the public, you serve ALL the public not just those you choose.

      1. Guy Warinner says:

        I believe you are absolutely correct. The right to refuse a customer also deals with the actions of the customer and not his religion…

    7. pablo Fumero says:

      Christians use bigotry while standing on that bible to justify it. A business should not be allowed to discriminate based on religious dogma. That bakery is NOT a church and should not have any protections against bigotry.

      1. John Owens says:

        Perdóname, pero se me hace que Ud is bigoted against churches. THIS IS NOT ACTIONABLE DISCRIMINATION!

        1. Paul J. Fumero says:

          It most certainly is discrimination
          if you were to be denied a cake for being gay. Christianity is on its way out and they get more viccoous with their hate and bigotry. Source does not discriminate and neither should they.

          1. John Owens says:

            The baker did not deny them a cake. He denied making them a special cake made especially for a gay couple’s wedding. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, are U.S. Citizens guaranteed the Right to have a certain baker bake us a wedding cake. If you call this hate and bigotry, what do you call your own attitude? Bitterness and dissatisfaction?

        2. JOHN MAHER says:

          HEY OWINS UR SPANISH is MUCH MORE WORSERER than YOUR STUPID KNOW it ALL COMMENTs , LOOK UP INGA, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

      2. Guy Warinner says:

        Pablo you have to understand that John does not know what discrimination is he is all white…

        1. John Owens says:

          One does not have to be a veterinarian to recognize the rear end of a horse, Guy. But, how would you know I am all white. Mi piél, sí, es blanco, pero eso no predica mi mente.

          1. Guy Warinner says:

            Because of your answers, they are White Christian Dogma that has no relationship to reality…

          2. John Owens says:

            …and how, pray tell, are YOUR answers NOT some OTHER kind of dogma that has no relationship to reality? By what standard do you measure, that you think is superior?

    8. meatball says:

      the owner has the right to refuse service

      1. Guy Warinner says:

        Only for the actions of the customer and not for religious dogma…

        1. William Clapie says:

          “Gay” is religious dogma or do you mean “Christianity”?
          Also, “We reserve the right to refuse service to customers” is an open statement, where does it specify actions?

          1. Caleb says:

            William, let’s call a spade a spade here. Those signs are primarily in bars and restaurants not so owners can say “we don’t serve your kind.” They are there bc they want it to be known when a belligerent and unruly customer comes in and causes a scene, they can then be dismissed. The sign stands as a warning. It does not protect discrimination.
            Haven’t we learned that from what happened to the black people in the 50’s and 60’s?

    9. Krystiona Mcculloh says:

      While I under stand that some may be excited about the same sex marriages being legal. I also understand that freedom is freedom and I have no right to demand someone else’s. I can’t ask for freedom to do, and get it and try to subjugate you for it. I also would not be able to ask that you regardless of the law substitute and or make substitutions in and or with your beliefs,so that I could celebrate mine. Just because, is not equality freedom is personal to the person to whom it belongs.
      I write this as a person but also on behalf of God. My Liberty is not just used for others it’s used for me, and if I do not want to make and or use m Liberty for homosexuality I do not have to. A persons business is there own they own it, not the customer who merely wants what it provides.respectfully if you know that a business does not service a specific way and or practice go else where. I am no more required to respect your Liberty then you are mine. My Liberty does not change because yours of you for you and or about you did.
      Also, it’s a selfish, hateful, and ignorant habit to Harrass people for living the way that allows them to feel guilt free of sin and shame. Truthfully I did not work for and or in order, for people to be gay and or have gay rights. Your being gay is something you did on your own. What you have for your ho esexuality is your own making. Stop whining I owe you nothing, stop complaining we owe you nothing except to love you. The populace of man and woman marriage has so grown and evolved into such a thriving way of life that it can’t afford to fund a would be spouse to or for the wrong gender. If can’t afford to take a back seat to your greed and temper tantrums. It can’t afford to stop providing for its children.
      For Christians, homosexuality is a sin because the God we serve said so, we are told and instructed to act in certain ways about it and to not do it. We are told not to support homosexuality, for you I will not be teaching my children that they can and or should have sex with a member of the same sex they are.
      What you see merely as a religion is life to those who live it. Simply no thank you. We’re not asking for you, leave us alone. We are not rejecting you but the sin, and yes we will gladly defend are beliefs because that’s what loyal people do. I do NOT think you have the right to come and demand of me what iVe worked for. It is not yours if I have a business I have it because it worked for it, everything it is. The bible says owe no man nothing except to love him. I will not and we will not apologize for living and catering to everyone else’s demands. Your not our boss, you don’t cause us to thrive and make our schedules, you don’t decide who we are are. It is not a sin to be honest and say that we did and didn’t and or do and or do not do things.
      We are not obligated to the changes you make, your life style choices are your own you be responsible for them and to the,yes we are free. That is what we would like to stay. I do not want to disrespect God because you think it’s ok to have man allow something and or permit you to do something, that God wouldn’t and doesn’t. Calling something legal makes it and or gives it no more priority then it’s value. Freedom of religion says legally that I am allowed to practice it. Thereby my religion and the law thereof and or for was and has been established. I do not have to apologize for continuing to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because you selfishly have thought that your legal rights should replace mine and or negate it. That is simply not true. My religions says I do not and should not be gay nor suppport it, and I will not. Nor will I support devil worship and polygamy. God is love, have a blessed week.

      Sincerely, Pastor Krystiona Mcculloh

      1. Caleb says:

        I think what’s getting lost is the fact that the business is governed by laws because it is in the public sector. In Colorado it is illegal to not supply goods and services to individuals based on their sexual orientation. This man believes marriage is between a man and a woman based on religious beliefs. His store is not a not a private club, church or what have you. He sells among other things, wedding cakes to the public. No he shouldn’t have to change his beliefs and now start believing marriage is between all consenting adults. No one is expecting that, that would be infringing on his religious beliefs. That is protected in the first amendment. The art thing as distracting as it is falls under that. But that is not what is happening.
        He is saying I sell cakes to the public but not to you to because this cake is for your same sex wedding. No one is asking him to change his beliefs but rather NOT discriminate and deny his goods and services based on the couple’s sexual orientation. It’s the law in Colorado!
        If his problems are with selling wedding cakes to gays because their gay then he truly needs to find a different religion where “do onto others as you would have done onto you” is actually practiced.
        If this is deemed legal then the same thing that is going on in MS where it’s legal to not offer goods and services to anyone if it goes against your religion. This has opened up a can of worms which now can backfire. I just read an article that cite the example that physicians can deny treatment to homosexuals because their religion tells them that homosexuality is a sin. So now as was mentioned in the article by the same law, atheist physicians can legally deny treatment to religious people. I would hope with all my heart that neither scenarios ever happens but that’s the law as it stands now.
        If the baker is found to be well in his legal right or the physician that denies treatment to homosexuals or atheists, then I ask you anyone where will it stop? Is this a road we are ready to go down, instead of embracing each others’ differences and stand together as a people.
        Love your neighbor as yourself!

      2. Guy Warinner says:

        Freedom does not give anyone the right to refuse service or product based on their race, color, creed, sexuality or religion. Freedom does not give a Christian the privileged to break the law. Freedom does not give the Baker the right as a Christian to usurp Gods job as judge and punisher. The whole idea that homosexuality is evil stems from not understanding how DNA and hormones given to pregnant mother have effected how people think and function. Sorry pastor you are unequivocally wrong when you or anyone judges someone and at the same time claims to be a Christian per the Bible this is a paradox and a sin…

        1. John Owens says:

          If other people are telling you what you have to do, then freedom isn’t freedom. Democrats break the law every day and it’s just hunky-dory.

          1. Caleb says:

            No one’s telling bakerman what to do. He’s free. That’s his life. But he has to follow the law if he want to operate his business.
            Being “free” still means following the law of the land.
            And why do you want to bring politics into this? You’re being one sided. Both parties have many issues. There’s been a number of republicans busted for bathroom misconduct and molesting boys in the recent past that I can recall.

        2. John Owens says:

          You certainly don’t seem to have any qualms about “usurping God’s job as judge and punisher” to condemn the baker. Geez, the double standard is wider than the Pacific Ocean.

    10. dotwilson@comcast.net says:

      “Love is love.”

      1. John Owens says:

        True love is true love, and everything else is not.

      2. Guy Warinner says:

        Define love…

      3. Michael Grace says:

        “Love is love.”

        Does that go for the following people also, ones who want to have sex/marry children, those who want to have sex/marry their dog/goat/sheep/horse/other animal, those wanting to marry an inanimate object?

    11. Skin Tickler says:

      It’ll be interesting to see what all the “good Christians” say when some business refuses to do something for one of them “because of religious beliefs”. Won’t the hypocrisy be fun to watch?

      1. John Owens says:

        Not really going to happen, because A) Christians are good paying customers B) generally very well-behaved C) honest and courteous D) family-oriented E) If someone doesn’t treat them just the way they like, they don’t go crying discrimination, but go elsewhere, like adults are supposed to do.

        1. Caleb says:

          Well there’s a HUGE generalization if I’ve ever seen one.

          1. John Owens says:

            You are lop-sided, Caleb. It is not ANY MORE HUGE THAN “It’ll be interesting to see what all the “good Christians” say when some business refuses to do something for one of them “because of religious beliefs”. Won’t the hypocrisy be fun to watch?”

            I think we can all see how pseudo you are. Tickler just pretty much said Christians are hypocrites, and said “good Christians” in quotes as if they are not. How is MY generalization any greater than HIS?

            Answer: It is not. You are just being a pseudo-intellectual and trying to make argument when you have none.

            I told you I don’t want to argue with you. If you were smart enough to argue with me, you would already agree with me.

      2. John Benson says:

        Christians have been persecuted for years…to this present day! Most of the rant here seems to be against God and Christianity. I’m surprised at all the obvious bias and hate, especially in this forum. We call us spiritual leaders?
        Is it a wonder why we don’t have world peace?
        Why are kids are killing there parents and parents are killing there kids!
        Why our Government and we aren’t worried as to what we have become as a society and where we’re going!

        We’re arguing over cake, when someone in the world right this second, is being murdered because he believes in God, because he doesn’t believe in God, because there gay, because there black, because their DIFFERENT!
        Enough…Love and Peace starts with 1 at a time…can I have 2?

        1. Caleb says:

          I haven’t seen all this hate just disagreement. Just some of the Christians on here displaying blatant hypocrisy.

          1. John Owens says:

            Show us examples of this “blatant hypocrisy”, Caleb, Please.

        2. Caleb says:

          John, saying you are Christian which main principal is the golden rule, then not following it. Blatant hypocrisy.
          The cake baker…prime example.
          AlsoJohn, we’ve been arguing for days, I mean no ill will just disagreeing. That’s debate 101, so in essence, I do want to argue with you. At least for now.

          1. Guy Warinner says:

            right on…

          2. John Owens says:

            So, you did not show where the Christians on here are showing blatant hypocrisy, Caleb. You just say that because they don’t agree with you. That is not hypocrisy. That is wisdom, because you are wrong.

        3. Guy Warinner says:

          John Benson again you and the baker are going out of your way to support discrimination because you feel the gay couple sinned by being gay. So if this is right then you should never help the poor because they have the sin of being poor, you can’t help the sick because they have the sin of being sick, you can’t help a person that is a criminal because they have really sinned, you can’t help the average person because they have sinned and all of these people have sinned as part of Gods Holy Plan. All of these people have sinned so why aren’t you and the baker refusing to help anyone and everyone because according to the Bible everyone is sinning in some way.
          So by picking the particular sin you want to punish and the rest of the sinners are OK, you fall into the realm of paradoxical insanity because you discriminate on which sin is the baddest sin and which sins you accept as good sins…

          par·a·dox
          ˈperəˌdäks/
          noun
          noun: paradox; plural noun: paradoxes

          a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.
          “in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it”
          synonyms: contradiction, contradiction in terms, self-contradiction, inconsistency, incongruity; More
          oxymoron;
          conflict, anomaly;
          enigma, puzzle, mystery, conundrum
          “the paradox of war is that you have to kill people in order to stop people from killing each other”
          a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
          “a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox”
          a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.
          “the mingling of deciduous trees with elements of desert flora forms a fascinating ecological paradox”

          Origin

          1. Caleb says:

            Wow!
            Kinda nailed it! Guy!
            I think this is that “drop the mike” thing they’re talking about.

  2. Natalie says:

    Why can’t we all just get along?. For hells sake whats the harm in a cake? Its not like they are going to sleep wirh or have sex with them!.. there is not a thing wrong with two people expressing love and care. Better then two people trying to kill each other. Oh wait thats right forget love thy neighbor as you love yourself..

    1. John Owens says:

      The love thing is supposed to work both ways. Some people say if the baker wanted to show love they would have baked the cake. If the gay couple had been showing love they would have respected the sensitivities of the baker. The baker took nothing from the gay couple, but the gay couple effectively took the bakery from the baker. It does not seem just. Fair. Justice should always be reciprocal. This was not. No argument can change that. Any adult judge should have thrown this out as being frivolous, but instead someone is wanting to make a point to the rest of us, telling us what the NEW moral code shall be, whether we like it or not. Nobody cares about the gay couple, and nobody cares about the baker. They just care about making noise and pretending to be on one side or the other. The whole thing is so stupid it is beyond stupid. I hate that the gay couple had their feelings hurt and I hate that their response to that was a lawsuit. I hate that some lawyer was money-grubber enough to take the suit and that some judge was agenda-driven enough to let it go to court. I hate that the baker lost so much. I guess I’m just a hater.

      1. Tom says:

        John…even though i am a lawyer, i agree there is far too much litigation in the world today…look how ridiculous this get; contorting into a lawsuit about art?!…they should have sat down and discussed it…as you inferred, and as I have always believed, you can not legislate morality…Tom

        1. William Clapie says:

          I love people that think. On a frivolous note. Much of the love I see “explained” here seems to be forced, or evol. (evil) spelled backwards. Yes, intended as a funny. However (always a however) people have been killed for love. So. How does that fit in this grand scheme? This was a basic question. Should the baker have sold a wedding cake to a gay couple? He chose “no” because of personal beliefs, they chose to sue because for their own reasons. I think the lawsuit is frivolous with the background of the story included.

          1. John Owens says:

            I concur, William, but the moral outrage expressed on this page, people with no obvious moral compass, on behalf of the gay couple, would suggest half the country and Canada are frivolous.

    2. Guy Warinner says:

      Natalie right on, with so much hate in the world today I cannot find it in my heart to condemn someone for finding love in the only way it works for them…

  3. Jack Lam says:

    It’s an abomination to god.to be gay.but if you want to rewrite the bible and be damed for the rest of eternity.then so be it.i will prey for the wicked minded soles.amen.

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      ARE U GAY JACK LAM, SOUNDs LIKE UR HIDING SOMETHING, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

      1. inga says:

        the two categories used to be simple:
        believers and non believers.

        and then someone started asking questions.
        quote from monty pythons: life of brian.
        scene: crowd speaking to brians mother.

        question from the crowd: if its not to personal.. are you a virgin ??
        brians mother: if its not to personal ?? if its not to personal ??!! HOW MUCH MORE PERSONAL DOES IT GET ?!! now *** off !!

        we dont have to answer all the questions we are asked.

    2. Guy Warinner says:

      That archaic idea based on a mythical entity is absurd as believing that the night sky is a big blanket thrown over the world by God and the stars are holes in the cloth and both are beliefs of the Ancient Semitic Hebrew as part of their religious beliefs…

    3. William Clapie says:

      Dude. Re-read your “book”. Much is condoned in that book of fables that is supposed to be some type of message or guideline. Whoring, Prostitution, Murder, Divine Punishment for Indecision, Killing Children for Insulting Priests. Shall I continue or do you get the point? The bible is a book of fables compiled from many sources and the one currently accepted as “the WORD” was a commissioned work for a King. Did you think they would allow things in the bible that would upset him? Hummm? Don’t preach Jack until you have a true stump to stand on.

      1. JOHN MAHER says:

        FREE WILLIE, GO GET EM WILLIAM CLAPIE, RIGHT tfo, WE NEED MORE CLEAR THINKING PERSONS on this POST and ALL POSTs, WELCOME WILLIAM, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

        1. William Clapie says:

          Thank you, I think. I just stated in the form of his “truth”. “I am the word and the word is law” Right?
          Great guideline. Then, ask a question as in, “but, why does god let babies die?”. Standard answer? We are not to know Gods will. Right. BAAL anyone? You know, one of those pagan Gods that had babies burned in his belly? He is GOD too, right? LMAO! Grade school stuff. “See Dick, see Jane, See how they follow the herd”. Sheeesh. I am outta here. Peace ya’all

        2. inga says:

          agreed. but the book of fables does offer lessons as does the book of aesop and other books we should be reading and pulling from.
          “god” knows, we can use all the help we can get..
          and in this day and age, the beauty of it is.. we do have access to expand our minds.
          god bless the internet where we can increase and broaden our minds and views.

          1. William Clapie says:

            Indeed. many tales can be taken as moral guidelines. Or community standards. Grimm’s for instance. Vaguely showing that in some instances children can be resourceful and be careful who you chose to follow.

          2. Guy Warinner says:

            What I see is that too many people think that what the movies display as historical fact is facts when it is really a white washed version of history used as a backdrop to someone’s story…

      2. John Owens says:

        Your concept of the Bible is not the issue here, because this is about RIGHTS, but just for fun, I’ll point out that large portions of it have been verified by archaeology, so it is unfair to say it is ALL fables. Some parts (Hezekiah’s Conduit, Jericho, the Tower of Babel, and others) were presumed by skeptics to be fables for millennia, only to be proven true by archaeology. Also, the fact that it tells you the sins of its own heroes sets it apart from most human works, compilations or not. Humans, left to their own devices, would edit the stories to make their heroes appear infallible, in order to further their agendas. The Flood story is practically universal, even from ancient sources who according to SCIENCE never had any contact with the Hebrew scriptures. All of them placed their version of the Ark, though, on a mountain near to them, known to them. Only the Hebrews placed it on a distant mountain, of which they should not have even known it existed, since Abraham was from Ur, in Iraq, and would not likely have even known the names of mountains in Turkey.

        1. William Clapie says:

          Agreed, at least in part. I am not infallible. I am just a man. Always have been always will be. Is some of the bible proven? I will concede that, I haven’t studied it that much. I do know the bible is composed of very old cuneiform writings that had to be deciphered and translated. Will you grant me that much would be lost or translated poorly in the number of times that it has taken this book to be in it’s current form? Is the flood story universal? Again, I am not sure. I am not that type of scholar. I seem to remember some studies from decades ago that did question some type of nearly uniform layer of sediment on our little mud ball that would be at this point some six or seven thousand years old. Sediment tends to precipitate from large bodies of water. Hum. Does that “prove” the biblical flood? I don’t know. It was just an odd memory that I may well have gotten wrong. Frankly, my head has been used as a bowling ball far too many times by cars and motorcycles. Most of what bothers me about “the book” is the lengths to which people will use it to justify actions against other folk, now matter how heinous. The so called Holy War for instance. Soldiers of God? We are not to question the Lord’s ways? Huh?

          1. Guy Warinner says:

            I am 71 years old and have studied the Bible and Mediterranean archaeology for the better part of that life. What I have found is that a lot of the OT is history, lineages and fables. I say fables because they were handed down from word of mouth for thousand years or more before they were written. It is like a game of gossip the sentence you start out with is not the one you end up with. Stories have been exaggerated by religious leaders and story tellers to increase the awe factor of their God. For instance the Flood myth could not have happen the way that the Bible depicts it because for one thing there is no physical or geological evidence that a world wide flood ever occurred. The flood was more than likely a flood of the century that occurred during a regular yearly flood season. People cite sea shells on top of mountains but if you look at the Great Russian Steppes there is no evidence of a great flood ever occurring no sea shells, no flood…

          2. John Owens says:

            I’m not sure to what you refer as a Holy War, William. I know the scriptures say that in some wars, God took a side, usually in favor of His chosen people, but sometimes against them, to punish them for disobedience. I would not call the Crusades Holy Wars. Parts of them were justified, to reclaim land and rescue people and cities, but they weren’t Holy at all, being presided over by the unholy Bishop of Rome and the apostate priesthood of that church. When the US entered WW2, THAT, in my mind, was closer to a Holy War than the Crusades. I think the Klan thinks of themselves as “Christian Soldiers”, but nearly every extremist group, including ANTIFA, thinks they are somehow justified or morally correct. The Maoists and Sandinistas, and DAESH included.

            But, while not asking you to concede that the Bible is infallible (I do believe the translators, and the TRANSCRIBERS have tweaked it according to their opinions), I think anyone would be amiss if they did not acknowledge that the way of life prescribed by Moses, on an individual basis, makes for healthier people and relationships, a fair and impartial criminal justice system, less crime, less disease, less poverty, less misery, than any other philosophy has offered to date. If that is conceded, there is no reason not to teach it and accept it.

            And Guy, there is no evidence that human beings or cow-farts cause global warming but people STRONGLY believe it. They should demand hard evidence on that. Not charts and propaganda and computer models, but evidence that is in all aspects, real and tangible. They should investigate rigorously on their own, but they don’t. You seem to have investigated or at least READ some investigation regarding the universal flood. What you say contradicts some of the things I have read. I will not say you are wrong. I do not posses tangible evidence for that. I will just say people should apply the same rigorous proof to all the wishy-washy theories about economics and government and vaccinations and the spirit world and just about everything else.

          3. William Clapie says:

            John Owens? Thanks man for being reasonable and apparently affable. The holy war I refer to was what I thought the “crusades”were called. Geological evidence, text evidence, archeological evidence. All open to interpretation I think.The scientific community second guesses itself all the time.Guy Warner? Thanks for that article sir. I admire people that have the patience and skill to dig up old language and architecture and try to make coherent thought out of “bits” of data. Thousands of hours I imagine in all projects. I recall that in science that the “proof” of civilization keeps getting further and further back in years. They find the “epitomy” of discovery on a dig and in the next month someone finds another old site to dig up that is more ancient. Who am I to have a great opinion when many-a learned professional changes their mind’s every year?

    4. Bob says:

      While Jack Lam “preys” for the “soles” of “damed” men, I will be starting a “CrpwnFunding” to buy him SpellCheck,

    5. Paul J. Fumero says:

      I have news for you. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN REWRITTEN. God does not hate. That is bible crap.

    6. Guy Warinner says:

      Jack Lam it is an abomination to God to judge and punish, the Bible says so. So what is your take on bakers sin which is premeditated while the gay couple have an excuse they have been mentally wired backwards from birth, so what is your’s or the baker’s excuse for the abomination of usurping Gods job by judging and punishing…?

  4. Kirk says:

    The store owner shouldn’t have been fined $135,000 and have to close up shop just because he didn’t want to make a few bucks on a cake. The gay couple sound like a couple of a-holes that would have sued him, or refused to pay anyway. Did they really want a cake made by somebody they thought didn’t like them? Geez, just give the guy a bad review on yelp and Facebook!

    1. John Owens says:

      AGREED!

  5. Beth K says:

    The problem is that businesses get rights and privileges as part of their public accommodation. For that to make sense, they have to serve everyone who wants their product or service and is willing to pay the money asked/expected for it.

    Motels in the south did not have to allow blacks in their motels. Fine, they could go to another motel. That motel wouldn’t either. If they were lucky, they’d find one which would. It was usually run down, only rented to blacks. Soon, they couldn’t get what they needed for upkeep, and it closed. Then, there was no motel for blacks to stay in. Sure, someone could have opened one, but they’d have the same problem. They’d have social problems living in the town, since because they were (pejorative for black-positive person), their kids couldn’t play with them, they didn’t want them in their schools and churches, they weren’t welcome in the diner, they couldn’t buy goods or services. The next town was the same way. The end result was blacks had no right to travel. Thus, there was the public accommodation laws and sections of the Civil Rights Act. If those are not enforced, the Civil Rights Act becomes meaningless.

    The baker in this case could have just obeyed the law. He;s using everything from the local fire department services to the local electric lines, and taking business expenses as tax deductions. Obeying the law, and expecting everyone else will, is one thing that defines a civilization.

    He could be a private club, or he could bake cakes as an individual without a business for his friends. He could refuse to bake cakes for anyone not in his club or circle of friends.

    BTW, those little signs, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” are just plain not legal.

    One can get by without wedding cakes or motels. What about when it’s grocers? Or plumbers? Or doctors?

    1. Guy Warinner says:

      Right on Girl…

      1. William Clapie says:

        Uhm. Did you read the “refuse service part”. You cannot deny rights and then take them away in the same breath. “We reserve the RIGHT to refuse service to anyone”. Similar to employment. You employment is usually “At Will” between you and your employer. That means that “termination” can happen just “because”. That’s a business “right” as far as I can remember.

        1. Guy Warinner says:

          The right to refuse does not dismiss laws against discrimination but relate to behavior or actions of a customer and not anything related to religion, LGBT, race, color, nation origin, etc…

          1. John Owens says:

            Marriage is a behavior. Marriage between two men is a specific behavior. There is a huge contradiction in your own logic (or lack thereof). The baker did not discriminate against the MEN, but against their behavior, which is perfectly acceptable for him to do.

          2. Caleb says:

            Marriage is a legal contract. Some choose to make it a part of their religion as well.
            It is not a behavior. Here, I’ll help you out via Merriam Webster

            Definition of behavior
            1
            a : the manner of conducting oneself criminal behavior normal adolescent behavior
            b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
            c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment They are studying the behavior of elephants in the wild.
            2
            : the way in which someone conducts oneself or behaves (see behave 1) We were grateful for the gracious behavior of our hostess. The children were rewarded for good behavior. Be on your best behavior.; also : an instance of such behavior unacceptable social behaviors
            3
            : the way in which something functions or operates They tested the behavior of various metals under heat and pressure.

            How is the act of marriage a behavior again? Oh because you’ll have to behave in order for the clerk or pastor to sign off on your certificate.
            Lord please have mercy!

        2. Guy Warinner says:

          John Owens there is no contradiction of my logic and the most stupid thing is you have no idea what the law says and being gay and asking for a Wedding Cake is not part of the “Refuse Service” laws. Did they gay men come in to the store and start fighting with other customers, did they start to trash the store these are the requirements for a refusal of service not asking for a Wedding Cake.
          You grasp at straws trying to make a case that discrimination by theists is not discrimination so obviously you have no idea what you are talking about except that you are condoning a persons premeditated sin because there is no where in the Bible that says Christians must punish everyone that sins. You don’t believe in the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and by your admission you tend not to follow the teachings of the Bible but follow the those that are homophobic that do not use their minds or logic instead they use hate as the way to worship the Bible unfortunately for you the Bible is not about hate that is your own philosophy.
          Your type of Christianity is just like ISIS type of Islam, mindless ignorance without any logic or rational thought behind it.
          This is not the Christian way it is the way of Satan (that is if there were Gods) but it seems to be your way and the way of many supposed Christians that actually follow Satans teachings rather than the Bibles teachings…

          1. John Owens says:

            There you go again. God, you are so DENSE!

          2. Guy Warinner says:

            I might be dense but you definite do not believe in or follow the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ which is what your posts indicate. There is nothing more to say to a confirmed homophobic except that I have seen that most homophobic people (like you a non-believer in the Bible or the Teachings of JC, just a person that makes up a lot of stuff) are usually racist. Now I am not saying you are a racist but you sure seem to be a lot closer to them than the rest of the people on this board…

          3. John Owens says:

            You are unbelievably stubborn, bitter and hypocritical. You do hate Christians and you hate yourself which is why you hate me. I couldn’t care less except that this blog gives you a forum to spread your untruth and hatred for anything good. You twist everything you see and hear and that I have said and you accuse me of being like you, a hypocrite and hater, but you are wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, 180 degrees wrong. I’m not angry, not hurt, not hating, not homophobic, not ignorant. You only use scripture to condemn others whom you do not even know. I have a new name for you: Hominis Cavus, and your little buddy, Hominis Minimus.

            Revel in your new-found celebrity!

          4. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens you keep making unfounded accusations about me hating Christianity, I don’t hate It it is just another philosophy based on mythology, Why should I care, and I don’t, whether a person is uneducated enough to believe in and worship a myth. Your angry because you know that I am right about the bakers discrimination but because I am an atheist you can’t admit it so the next thing you do is to start proselytizing, failure is your only option…

          5. John Owens says:

            Dee dee dee, dah, dah dah. More sick drooling. Yada, yada.

  6. JOHN MAHER says:

    STOP the BIGOTRY ASSHOLES, WHY do YOU CARE WHO HAS THEIR CAKE and EAT it, SOUNDS LIKE YOU NEVER HAD CAKE, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP,GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

  7. Miki Dash says:

    If you are in a business that is public, there should be no discrimination. If you want to discriminate: make it private–not public! As far as the two ordering the cake: they could fight this, but go elsewhere for the cake.

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      EXACTLY MIKI DASH,EXACTLY !!! DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

  8. inga says:

    everybody should eat cake. not everybody should go to church. but everybody should eat cake.

    1. Tom says:

      Inga…as per Marie Antoinette…Tom

      1. inga says:

        yeah.. lol. but please dont cut my head off.. lol

        1. Tom says:

          Inga…i would not do that…it would severely cut down on your ability to eat cake…Tom

  9. John Owens says:

    Gosh, Joseph, it seems like over half of your posts have something to do with LGBTQ stuff. Is there an agenda being played out here?

    It’s not anybody had any doubts how most of the commenters here would lean. It’s stylish to be pro-LGBTQ now. You really can’t tell who’s REALLY pro, because most don’t have the brass on their face to say they are con. It’s dumber than a stump to try to force someone to do business with you. Only the government and organized crime do that.

    1. William Clapie says:

      And your local water company. To my great chagrin. I can live without water from them and face fines or pay the water bill. Wheeee. Some choice. There is well water available but somehow it is illegal to use it. “HUH?”

      1. John Owens says:

        Yes, William. I cannot comprehend how the Supreme Court allows a city or county to rule that you have to use THEIR water, when too many have proven incompetent and unreliable at providing safe drinking water, and then OUTLAW the use of wells and even the catching of rain water. I simply do not believe the STATE owns the rain water that falls on my property. I will never accept that.

  10. Joseph E Knopick says:

    Here is the thing. The Cake Shop owner is not allowed to say no, even if he believes that this would be a violation of his religious views. The Law suit is trying to force him to abandon his views, and his religious laws. This is discrimination in two ways. The Baker thinks he has the right to refuse business based on religion. The couple’s law suit says he has no rights as a religious person. As for choice they’ve made their respective choices, the Baker said no. The Couple said sue.

    What do I think. I think that a business owner has the right to refuse a customer’s order. The couple also have the right to sue or not. They could have just said whatever and went to the shop e recommended. The thing I think really is the issue is the concepts of respect and validation. The Couple would like to have had the Baker to Validate their choice to marry. It is always a happy time, until some one says, they do not think you should be married. The Baker asked that his religious belief be validated and respected also. If you noticed, and you may have forgot, but at the beginning of the story, He offered to sell them anything he had for sale. I’m sure he would have made them a cake for their Birthday or another big event. However his religious beliefs would not be able to support or accept a homosexual union as a marriage. He is against it, and told them that he could not do so.

    Do I think he discriminated? No. He offered to treat them like any other guest. He just cannot in his good conscious support an event that is against his religion. Do I think that the couple were upset by this? Yes. Should have sued him, No. He like many small businesses have put their heart in soul into their businesses and art. He did direct them to another shop that would happy to make the cake.

    Ultimately the whole thing is just ridicules.

    1. John Owens says:

      I agree. Ridiculous.

    2. Guy Warinner says:

      There is no religious law that says all good theist have to discriminate judge or punish but the Bible says that job belongs to some other mythical entity, either way it is an archaic POV based on a mythical God…

    3. William Clapie says:

      Great reply. He even directed them to a competitor to fulfill their order. Also, what would have stopped them from buying a layered cake and putting the “groom and groom” figures on top? He did offer to sell them any product in his store! He gave himself and the couple an out!@

      1. Guy Warinner says:

        Not really, he made a premeditated decision to sin against his religion, the Bible and God by judging and punishing rather than treating them as the Bible says a person is to treat others “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has become the forgotten message that the mythical Jesus Christ gave you that you refuse to follow or do you think it is OK to discriminate against you for being in the Clapie family…

  11. Tom says:

    If I remember, the Heart of Atlanta Motel case stood for the proposition that if your business invites the public for purchases, you can not discriminate…a more interesting question might be what happens when a customer asks a Muslim baker for alcohol in a cake; or a customer asks an Orthodox Jewish baker for candy with bacon

    1. John Owens says:

      Exactly, Tom. If the public is going to insist that Christians go against their beliefs, then they must insist Muslims, Jews, American Indians, Buddhists, and Hindus go against their beliefs. In essence, it is an insistence that people not actually have beliefs that affect their lives. Don’t live what you believe, but live what everyone else tells you.

      1. Tom says:

        John…your point is well-taken…as a lawyer, i think there would have to be a specific law dealing with a ban on religious beliefs influencing how to deal with the public…this is definitely a tough question…the “art” part of the article is just going off on a tangent…a possible solution might be to require the vendor to post a sign explaining what the vendor will not do…Tom

        1. John Owens says:

          Does anyone think a Christian couple whose wedding cake business was refused by a gay baker would stand a chance in court? I don’t think any judge would hear the case. If he or she did, they’d have to be considered anti-gay. That would never fly, but it’s okay to be anti-Christian.

          1. Tom says:

            John…it would be entertaining (though sad) to see the convoluted reasoning that would get that case through all the lower level courts to the Supreme Court…this is not why we have a judicial system…Tom

          2. John Owens says:

            Agreed, Tom

      2. Guy Warinner says:

        That is good for me all of the followers of mythical Gods need to (I have to include Buddhist which have no Gods but do have mythical characters) need to treat everyone as equal if everyone is not equal then who is more equal than you…?

      3. Guy Warinner says:

        There should be no issue for Muslims or Jews because they are not ingesting the products and surgical gloves would protect them from the touch of it. There is a difference here as the ban on pork products have a real basis for the ban of pork. Poor cooking of pork would lead to trichinosis which would lead to death.

        1. Tom says:

          Guy…people should not be told how to run their lives while dealing with others’ beliefs…ultimately, either laws say public vendors deal with everyone, or they allow the vendors to pick and choose…in the latter event, the vendors should pay for the public services they enjoy (police, fire, water etc)…and this includes “religious” organizations…the reason is that taxes are paid into a general application fund; no one pays taxes for pick and choose purposes…my personal view on the issue is that the baker should do the loving thing, and make the cake…he can still believe whatever he wants…people let their egos run their actions, and this is unfortunate…Tom

          1. Guy Warinner says:

            Yup…

          2. John Owens says:

            Don’t public vendors already pay for those public services they enjoy through licensing, rent or property tax, and income, municipal, county, and state sales tax?

        2. John Owens says:

          I don’t eat pork. I am not afraid to handle it. I am not insulted when others eat it. I am not a Nazarite, so I can touch it, and wash my hands, and I’m good. Muslims are not like that. They think if they are BURIED with pork they cannot enter their unholy paradise. They think all religions should accommodate THEM. This gay wedding cake flap is like that. “Accommodate our sexual idiosyncracies or we will sue you!” Nothing says tolerance like a lawsuit.

          1. Tom says:

            John…sorry for not being clear…my point is that if religious organizations want the services, which they obviously do, they should pay taxes…if vendors pay for all their services, and there is nothing special with the services they receive (no special assessments, etc), then they should have their choice…in no ways does this change my opinion that they should put aside their personal beliefs and serve whomever wants their services…Tom

          2. Guy Warinner says:

            First of all it is not your business what other people do as long as what they do is not breaking the laws or hurting others. Secondly it is not accommodating anyone sexual habits it is buying a product in a public store that has paid their license fees so they can open a public business. To do this there are laws that one must follow to be a public store and to think that your religion or any religion has a “Get out of jail for free” card is doing exactly that asking that they have the permission to break the law because they are trying to put their nose into someone else business…

          3. John Owens says:

            Guy, all of your arguments are hollow and contrived. I have gay and lesbian acquaintances. We sometimes dine together or socialize at gatherings, but they should they decide to marry, they would not ask me to perform the ceremony, and if they did, they would not sue me when I politely refused. It is the same principle. The EXACT same principle. A wedding cake is not like a birthday cake or an ordinary dessert. A wedding cake is part of a RELIGIOUS ceremony. By taking part in it that way, the baker is validating the marriage. That is what is at stake here. It is not about cake. They can get cake anywhere. They want to force a CHRISTIAN BAKER TO VALIDATE THEIR UNION. If they believe they are REALLY in the right, they don’t NEED Christian validation. If they DO need it, they have to do it within the Christian practice, and that does not fit their lifestyle.

          4. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens that is a fallacy making a cake has nothing to do with validating the marriage making a cake is not a religious event and the idea that it is OK to sin against others that you disagree with is compounding the sin of the baker and theist that follow this POV. There is a phrase in the Bible that Christians seem to ignore when it comes to people they disapprove of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Even denying the rights of a Christian wedding to anyone is an abomination against the teaching of the NT and the mythical Jesus Christ. Sinning against someone you decide is a sinner seems to me a much more evil sin than just being a sinner due to DNA issues that the person cannot help.
            Christians that follow this POV against anyone is just like ISIS just not quite as extreme. Christians have become the judge and punisher, I suspect because God has not thrown lighting bolts down and destroyed all of the Gays in the world…

          5. John Owens says:

            Guy, how can someone like you even PRESUME to preach to anyone about ANYTHING? You have eloquently expressed your disdain for the “Abrahamic Religions,” and with them their Scriptures. THEREFORE, SIR, YOU HAVE NO LEG ON WHICH TO STAND BESIDES YOUR OWN EGO which is hyper-inflated and hollow.

          6. Caleb says:

            I would say as educated as Guy seems to be on the Bible and Christianity, he very much has a leg to stand on.

          7. Guy Warinner says:

            John Owens, as usual your reading comprehension is at a very low level. I never said anything about hating the Abrahamic Religions and of course you do not understand the difference between disliking the actions of many Christians and hating Christians. First of all hate is a useless emotion and a waste of my time. Secondly I still don’t care if you worship myths that’s your business but the actions of people including Christians that I dislike. It is none of my business how you think but it is my business how you treat people…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          8. John Owens says:

            I don’t know who you think you are kidding, but you are about as unhinged as a person can be who is not institutionalized or at least in a half-way house.

    2. inga says:

      excellent point !! good one tom.

      1. Tom says:

        Thank you, Inga

        1. William Clapie says:

          Agreed. Too many times already the country has bent to small “vocal” groups. A business can make a choice. Just suppose this was a foul smelling raggedly dressed person. What would happen? They may have the money to shop but they may well be asked to leave because they were offending other customers. Right? Also, how do we pick and choose which religion has rights before the law? Come one come all. Think of all the religions out there all the “beliefs”. Which would you pick to deny? I am quite sure you would offend someone in this litigious country.

  12. Tom Jaynes says:

    Fine. The baker’s religious feelings are hurt if required to serve someone who acts contrary to his beliefs. Let’s make this easy. All businesses wishing to claim a religious exemption should post the following sign at the door, at the register, on sales checks, and on all business cards and advertising, both print and electronic:
    “This business is owned by persons with deeply held and personal religious beliefs. Because of those beliefs we will not serve members of the LGBT community (and other groups to be determined at a future date). If this is an inconvenience, we ask that you take your business elsewhere.”
    This way, people know up front whether they can expect to be served in this public business and not even enter the establishment and be forced to suffer the indignity of service refusal. Let the free market decide where it will shop, not the other way around
    I would venture that in short time there will be other business posting a sign which says, “Welcome! Based on our religious beliefs, we will serve everyone!”

    1. Tom says:

      Tom…i saw your post after i wrote back to John…i agree…Tom

    2. Guy Warinner says:

      It seems that Christians do not like following the rules and laws of the Bible they just want to enforce them on others instead of following the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which has been thrown away by 99% of the Christian in America…

      1. John Owens says:

        There it is again. The hater of all things Christian telling Christians how to be better Christians. Hey, I know, let’s invite SATAN to preach to us. He’s pretty smart!

        1. Caleb says:

          So you know Satan now?

        2. Guy Warinner says:

          Satan, John Owens is just as much of a myth as God and JC are. There is no evidence for any of them to actually exist except in the minds of unintelligent people that do not understand science, medicine, electronics, astronomy, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc.It is the choice of each individual to decide whether they will learn about science and the other academic endeavors (whether on their own or in a educations curriculum) or to be unintelligent about the world around them and base their philosophy on what they are told to believe rather than finding it themselves…

  13. inga says:

    i was thinking on a franchise. see, i am not big on the gay parades, as i think it introduces sexuaity to children at to young of an age. if a straight person were to promote sexuality to children, one would be called a predator. so why gay people can as a saturday afternoon matinee/parade, is beyond my comprehension.
    still, in keepin with respect for the gay community, though not my thing, i do feel they have a right to congegate collectively without violent reaction from the public.
    being a small town. we do not have a gay bar, though we do host the gay parades. sigh.
    many of my customers are gay, though that is irrelevant to their purchases. or atleast as far as we are concern.
    but back to the bar.. i can see how it would be good for all, if they had their place.. after childrens hours.. so the parents have a chance to raise their children accordingly, and not involve them in adult issues before their time.
    i propose a gay bar. after 8.. called.. THE CLOSET. lol. bahaha.
    no offense meant. we all, gay customers here too.. think this is clear, identifying, and purpose serving without being offensive.

    t hasnt happened yet here, so its a business propsal that is available for anyone who wishes to take it on.. lol.
    here.. we have sufficient numbers to carry an establishment. and for the gay community, it would be nice for them to go somewhere without threat.
    again, its not my thing.. but out of respect and recognition/awareness, etc….
    yeah.

    oh, and the rest of us are humoring the idea of an elvis wedding chapel like vegas. but not every day. maybe just fridays ?? lol.
    thats open for the entrepeneur too.

    1. William Clapie says:

      So, you would fit right in with my Church of the Irreverent Soul. The foundation is somewhat basic. Take it as it is, help those that need help. Don’t hurt those that DO NOT DESERVE it. That includes varied beliefs. I wouldn’t attend a Satanist’s party but, more power to em’. Not my thing to worry about.

      1. inga says:

        i guess i would, yes.

    2. inga says:

      if someone was to open a gay bar.. which would not be for me.. and i would not go to… i also would not tell them how to run it. it would be their establishment, based on their “gayness” ??
      if i accidentally walked into a gay bar, and they noticed and kindly suggested that this was not the place fro me because. well, its a gay bar, but there is an establishment down the street…. i would, being straight. apologize for my error, and thank them for their direction.
      i would hope they would have been flattered enough to think that it did initially appeal enough to draw me in….
      and i would certainly not hang around simply for the point of challenging them on their mindsets. lol.

      (that actually happened to me in a bigger city gay book store, (as opposed to a bar). being from a smaller town, we did not have gay specific book stores.. and the host of the store kindly explained the nature of her store, as she noticed i could not find a section of the store that was of interest to me beyond a giggle. and note: she was not offended).

      differences do not have to be greeted with angry responses. they can be handled in a respectful manner.

      christianity ?? and all its different subtitles, makes up a small percentage of the over all picture. we should be able to look at the world objectively.
      and it is still ok to appreciate people and their talents and their skills just because they are not of the same denomination(S).

      but or and.. what ever is politically correct to get the point across.. while we are to be respecting other people, we can assume respect as well.
      and it does not have to be because of their religion or lack of that makes them respectful, or lack of.. its a personal interpretation.
      sometimes, people are just having bad days and we dont know the whole story. even “god” does not protect people from “bad hair” days.

      * * *
      yesterday, a lady came in my shop. she was lost. i explained to her that she was in the right place, as i am good at teling people where to go.
      she was looking for.. *** she was out for a drive, not from here, had gotten turned around.. and well, just needed some help. and then she began to cry. reason unknown to me, but evidentally more than just from being lost, as she again expressed she just needed to get out and go for a drive.
      i offered her a bottle of water on the house. a small gesture that in scenarios such as these means a lot.
      she greatfully accepted. and then asked for a hug too.
      *(a gold watch would have not been as well received in this circumstance).
      i hesitated. “your pushing it”, i giggled. “i dont usually go touching my customers.. good thing you are cute”. and i gave her a hug. to which she giggled between tears.
      (i probably should have offered here a kleenex too, but didnt think of it in the moment).
      she was obviously distraught. and i am pretty sure that it was not likely anything i could have fixed. sigh. my heart went out to her.
      but these were the words of assurance i gave her.
      “sometimes life just really sucks, eh !!” (again, unknown of her circumstances, but identifying).
      pause
      good thing is though.. (in an optimistic grasp for .. well.. anything..), “once you hit bottom.. the only way ,,, is UP ?!!”

      she grabbed that hope like no other i have seen,

      and then i reminded her that s what i keep telling myself.. and then it turns out there is another rug under that rug that rips out from under me too.. lol

      fortunately, she tuned that part out and focused/grabbed on to : “the only way now is UP” !!

      she took her bottle of water, went out to the curb, washed off her face before getting in the car, and drove off.

      i didnt ask her religious or political affiliation.. her sexuality or lack of.. none of which came to mind, any more than offering her a gold watch as a cure all.
      i just pointed her in the direction of the street she asked for. gave her water, and the hug she asked for.

      thats all i seen appropriate for my part in this circumstance. my faith that “god: or “allah” or the “tree spirits” will either by divine intervention, or other people.. help her to be happy again soon.

      and so i went home and shared the story with my son, who is currently off work from the gas station, but will be returning shortly..

      the life of times of the gas station general store.
      10 years have passed through our lives here. celebrating graduations, mourning losses of spouses, barn fires, and barn buildings, cyotes eating live stock, the big deer hunt, fishing derbies, and dance classes, heart attacks, and atc accidents, corrective surgeries, and those that have failed, job promotions, and job lay offs.. etc. etc etc
      the emotional roller coaster we call life.

      we never know what the next story is to come through our doors. sometimes we almost wonder how much “business” we do. we are more like one big happy family, passing through the kitchen .. coming from {here] and on our way to [there].

      we are all supporting each other as best we can, in different ways for different circumstances.

      its not always gold watches.
      while the govt funded horse farm likes donations for the kids in the neighborhood youth group home.. to host their annual horse shows..
      the mud bogs simply ask for a place on the window to promote their event, for people to come race and drive their trucks in the mud while camping for a weekend.
      the legion places their poppy donation tray in turn,
      the three circus provides us with tickets to hand out for free admission to those under 14.

      its all good
      there is no one answer. no one thought fits all.
      we just do the best we can with what we got.

      we wouldnt have it any way.

    3. Guy Warinner says:

      Christians need to start following the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” instead of judging and punishing in the name of God which seems to me more of a sin than being gay which is not their fault as it is a DNA issue…

      1. John Owens says:

        If the baker had been judging and punishing he would have taken them to the top of a 5 or 10 story building and thrown them off, like ISIS does. NOT baking the cake was not judging and punishing. It was not participating.

        1. John Owens says:

          and it is not a DNA issue.

          1. John Owens says:

            An excerpt from the first study you linked, emphasis mine :

            McCarthy and other experts cautioned that the discovery of epigenomic marks SUGGESTIVE of homosexuality is a FAR cry from finding the causes of sexual preference.

            The distinctive epigenomic marks observed by Ngun and his colleagues COULD result from some OTHER biological OR lifestyle factor common to homosexual men but UNRELATED to their sexuality, said University of Utah geneticist Christopher Gregg. They could correlate with homosexuality but have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

            “Epigenetic marks are the consequence of complex interactions between the genetics, development and environment of an individual,” said University of Cambridge geneticist Eric Miska. “Simple correlations — IF significant — of epigenetic marks of an individual with anything from favorite football player to disease risk DOES NOT IMPLY a causal relationship or understanding.”

            If you are reading this as though it says genetics cause homosexuality, you cannot read very well.

          2. John Owens says:

            The second link is the dailymail, and the claims in the header of this article oppose the information in the first article, even though both are about the same GAY researcher, Tuck C. Ngun. Accepting GAY GENE research from a GAY researcher would be just like accepting CREATIONISM research from a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST researcher. It doesn’t mean it is false, but it has to be heavily scrutinized.

            Either way, the research does NOT say there is a gay gene, and Caleb and his buddy Guy are reading INTO it what they SO BADLY WANT TO BE TRUE, but is not, cannot be, because it is TOTALLY ILLOGICAL.

            They claim to follow and believe science, but they are NOT faithful to the science.

            All of which is irrelevant. Gay or not, the couple has no specific right to a wedding cake. I only mention the fake DNA information because one Guy keeps saying it as though it is a recognized FACT, which it is NOT.

          3. Caleb says:

            There first study concludes with the data “conclusively suggest that genes don’t explain everything.”
            The key word being everything. Meaning not 100%. Just like I have said two or three times before. Nothing is 100% in the study or any other on this topic!
            The article also says that much more study will have to be done. A good scientist will use all factors to prove, disprove their theory. That was done here.
            Biological evidence was not disproved, meaning the evidence is partially there, at least enough to keep studying further.
            But you are so right with your second post John, a study with some conflicting, some collaborating evidence that homosexuality is in part biological, can’t be given credence because the scientist was gay. Good catch there!

        2. Caleb says:

          I have said several times that there is not 100% proof of anything. I have said that is much scientific research that gives weight to the theory is biological.
          Now again, what you got to dispute science? And why is disproving scientific research that support the theory, so ridiculously important to you?

          1. John Owens says:

            I don’t have to disprove anything. It is a stupid theory, yet some people keep throwing it into the conversation nonchalantly as though it is accepted. You even want to argue it, because you have nothing else to do.

          2. Guy Warinner says:

            John, Stupid is professing to follow Jesus Christ ‘s Teachings and then support discrimination. Either you follow the teachings of JC or you don’t and from your answers you don’t seem to follow the teaching of JC.
            Stupidity is an option you have taken…

          3. John Owens says:

            You’re just saying that because your “evidence” is crap, but then it would have to be. You wouldn’t know about JC. Saying you’ve studied something is the same as saying, “I read a book about that.” Every time you type something it just makes you look more and more hollow. I guess that’s caused by DNA, too.

          4. Guy Warinner says:

            Stupid again. John I said I read them while I was a Christian, it is too bad you don’t have any reading comprehension. Exactly how would you know my evidence is crap because I will bet dollars to donuts that you didn’t read them. The mentally weak always attacks with lies about what was posted, the others read and evaluate what I have said or posted, Your such a sad person that you have to lie to try and prove me wrong…

          5. Caleb says:

            Again John why are you so hell bent on the idea that it is biological?

          6. John Owens says:

            I DID READ THEM. IS YOUR COMPREHENSION DEFICIENT? THAT WAS DONE BY A GAY RESEARCHER AND DID NOT SAY HOMOSEXUALITY WAS CAUSED BY DNA. So, even though he had an axe to grind, so he was saying maybe this and maybe that, could be this, could be that, he did NOT say being gay was caused by DNA. You are just grasping at straws.

          7. Caleb says:

            Oh so now you know the scientist. We’ll tell me what is his ax to grind exactly?
            Again you can’t defend your position other than name calling. You have 0 credibility.

          8. John Owens says:

            Caleb, you are far too dense to converse about this. I looked up the researcher. He is openly gay. His last name appears Cambodian or Vietnamese or Laotian, like Nungh, or something similar. I am not hellbent and it is not “ridiculously” important to me to prove it is not biological. YOU AND YOUR HOLLOW HERO are the ones who keep insisting that it IS biological and you keep putting up pretend research to back your preposterous claims. THEN you are so hollow that you pretend that I am the one obsessing. It is EASY to discredit any science that says that, because it is junk science, and cannot ever be anything else because when you set about to achieve a pre-determined result, you cannot, will not follow the pure scientific method and your findings will always be dubious. You are both very unbalanced individuals.

          9. Caleb says:

            Why do you obsess bc me and another member who I’ve never met, agree on this particular issue? You’ve done that like three of four times and it’s creepy.
            But ultimately what I find interesting is where there are tons of studies to say science has some play in one being gay, so call it all junk.
            Where’s your science that it’s not. You’ve been asked that at least 10 times and can’t provide anything. Not just science but you can’t even say why you have come to this conclusion. Man up and offer something.

        3. Guy Warinner says:

          John Owens, discriminating against them was the punishment. The bakes participation was in a anti-Christian, negative and in unlawful way…

          1. John Owens says:

            A) You don’t decide what is Christian and what is anti-Christian, and B) It remains to be determined whether it was unlawful or not. Being accused and prosecuted does not mean guilty. Still grasping at straws. Such desperation!

          2. Guy Warinner says:

            I don’t decide what is Christian ignoramus it is in the Bible to be read in plain language as well as archaic language and being an atheist I know what anti-Christians is. Discrimination is against the law, against the Constitution and against the Bible.and your homophobic insanity dose not allow you to think beyond stupidity…!!!!!!!

          3. John Owens says:

            There you go with the homophobic thing again. That’s all you have. No science, no reason, no real discussion. Just accuse, accuse, accuse, accuse. THAT’s unbiased, objective thinking, right there! You made up your mind about me before you ever met me. The only way anything I EVER say could sound reasonable to YOU, is if it MATCHES WHAT YOU SAY. You sit there in front of your keyboard, typing out the blasphemies in your head, as though it is just therapy for you and has no effect on those who read the debris that comes out of your hollow cranium. You criticize Christ and Christians, and call them homophobes and haters and judgmental because they do not automatically assume the worst about other Christians and the best about non-Christians AT THE SAME TIME. You exalt yourself above all that is called God, showing yourself that you are God, at the same time as you say that God is a myth. That would make you a fictional character, hence the name, Hominis Cavus.

            You get more and more unhinged with each blurb. Babble on, please.

  14. inga says:

    its maybe not that bad to label.. people label their churches ??!!

  15. John Owens says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    June 30, 2017 at 7:14 am

    Gosh, Joseph, it seems like over half of your posts have something to do with LGBTQ stuff. Is there an agenda being played out here?

    It’s not anybody had any doubts how most of the commenters here would lean. It’s stylish to be pro-LGBTQ now. You really can’t tell who’s REALLY pro, because most don’t have the brass on their face to say they are con. It’s dumber than a stump to try to force someone to do business with you. Only the government and organized crime do that.

    Read more at https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2017/06/cake-wars-should-christians-have-to-bake-cakes-for-gay-couples/#ER8wB00UfaxgCOub.99

    1. Caleb says:

      John sir, you’re just an unhappy soul. You’re boxed in to your little way of thinking and you’ll never progress.
      You have a probem with gay people and won’t just say it. You want to dance around and blame it on the “left,”because you think conservatives are supreme., Christians are supreme, and republicans are supreme.
      Stop being one sided and be a freaking human being!

      1. John Owens says:

        You’re just a pseudo-intellectual prick. You can join JM on the iggy-list.

        1. Caleb says:

          Wow John! You can hide behind a computer and call names!
          That’s pretty close to losing all credibility.

          1. John Owens says:

            Nobody is hiding, Caleb, and I belong to a group of people who do not hide.

          2. JOHN MAHER says:

            CALEB that sounds like a THREAT from the COWARD OWINS, KKK, MAYBE, HE WOULD or WORSE a tRUMPETEER, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

          3. Caleb says:

            John Mayer, he’s not threatening.
            I mean how serious can you take someone who conducts himself like a 10 year old.

  16. Guy Warinner says:

    The real questions to ask are; if discrimination is OK then anyone including the Government can discriminate against you and if everyone is not equal then who is more equal than you are…?

    1. inga says:

      i am admittedly an under achiever. i hope most aimed higher then me.

    2. Tom says:

      Guy…sounds like a question out of Animal Farm///Tom

    3. John Owens says:

      The government DOES discriminate, all of the time, every day. A law was passed forbidding private employers from discriminating because a person is over a certain age, and the US government will not hire over a certain age because they want you eligible for government retirement at 55. Oh, and if they don’t think they’re diverse enough? Forget about it. The government is more diverse than the general population. Colleges? Oh yes, they discriminate. The NBA apparently discriminates a LOT, and gets away with it. A lot of hair-styling salons discriminate in hiring and in their customers, and no one says a thing. If I went to a black-owned barber shop (I know a black-owned barber shop can do a GREAT flat-top) and they told me I’d be better off going somewhere else, should I sue them? Wouldn’t that make me as much of a jack-ass as the barber? I think the gay couple here were being really horrible, and yet so many feel sorry for THEM. Nobody took anything from them, called them names, defaced their autos, threatened them or defamed them in any manner, and yet so many of you think the baker was evil. If THAT’s what you call evil, you do not know what evil is.

      1. John Owens says:

        I never got any commentary on this paragraph from the pretend intellectuals ( I call them pseudos) who think they are so smart. I don’t talk to them anymore, so any of the rest of you who actually read stuff, watch what they write. They try to gang up on people and distract them and shut them down, if they don’t agree with the left wing on here. These are people who apparently have no job and nothing better to do, so they have all the time in the world to try to push their points of view. Their arguments are contrived and downright stupid, but they keep typing them and backing each other up until anyone else who thinks differently gets fed up and ignores them. Then the blog just fizzles out because no one is saying anything. Those of you who actually think should speak out once in a while, or this whole blog will be run by the lunatics.

        1. Caleb says:

          I’m a “pseudo intellectual” as you’ve crowned me. I’ll bite.

          Ever heard of the EPA’s Senior Environmental Employment Program, which has been around for 31 years? How about the comparable, seven-year-old Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture?
          Taken from
          http://www.nextavenue.org/federal-agency-jobs-just-for-people-55/

  17. JOHN MAHER says:

    WELL ALL YOU CAKE EATERS SHOULD be HAPPY, MORE CAKE for U, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP god is GREAT so is the US of A

    1. inga says:

      what kin do of cake do you like johnM

      1. JOHN MAHER says:

        the CAKE I like is the ONE that MARILYN MONROE POPs OUT and SINGs HAPPY BIRTHDAY, TO ME JOHN M. DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

  18. Mystic Angel says:

    If your offering to do a service to the community by opening a business, is it really smart to discriminate against certain people of that community? Would it be no different then telling someone of the opposite race that you won’t bake a cake for them because they are of different color? If you say it’s different, then your wrong. Discrimination comes in many forms and when you are refusing service to someone in your community based on a different belief system,race, or whatever (and that’s what it is) then refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is no different then refusing to bake a cake for a Muslim, Wiccan or Buddist. And quite frankly, it’s REALLY BAD FOR BUSINESS!
    But, this is America and if you want to let the whole community that you are discriminate, then you will take the hit by loss of profit and sales, bad reputation and may even lose your business. I know for myself that I would NOT patronize a business that discriminates against gay’s….and I’m NOT gay!

  19. Mark Arrand says:

    I see both sides as a non-partisan observer. The Baker has the right to refuse service to anybody. It is his place of business. On the flip side, the same-sex couple has the right to protest, boycott, sue, or take their business elsewhere. It is a slippery slope no matter which side you are on.

    1. Guy Warinner says:

      I don’t believe the baker has the right to refuse service if he has a public store (except for behavioral issues) otherwise it is discrimination. The right to refuse service has to be limited to non-discriminational issues. If we allow anyone to make indiscriminate a policy from either discrimination for any reason other than behavioral issues we create a racist charged environment…

      1. John Owens says:

        Racist discrimination IS against the law. Not baking a cake for someone is not discrimination. They can live quite well without cake. You are mixing two entirely different things. The baker was TOTALLY within their rights as a U.S. Citizen.

        –Ok. Imagine you are a wild-eyed Trump-hating, Obama-worshipping, Hillary-loving snowflake tree-hugger who believes everyone should have the same possessions and rights regardless of how hard they work or what crimes they commit and that cow-farts cause global warming. You are one of those people– you believe in free and open abortion (because it’s better they die before you get attached to them ) but you are also for total gun-control because you care SO MUCH about people. Ok, you imagined that?

        Now, you have a coffee and donut shop in Atlanta, Ga. and one day Newt Gingrich, Pat Roberts, the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump come in. I guarantee you would try to make up an excuse not to serve them, or you will spit in their food, AND YOU WILL FEEL TOTALLY JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO, because, well, just because. Because you are a lefty and you are AT WAR! You are the RESISTANCE. Any thing you do to hurt them is JUSTIFIED!

        Well, none of that has anything to do with this, except that everyone who thinks that baker is a HATER and guilty of DISCRIMINATION and all the other acrimonious junk being thrown around on here by people who DO NOT KNOW THAT BAKER OR THE GAY COUPLE INVOLVED but have chosen sides based on what the left-wing NWO media told them to choose, everyone who thinks like that knows they are being judgmental hypocrites in the worst sort of way.

        That baker wasn’t being hateful AT ALL. The article says that baker was being humble and contrite and tried very hard to be nice to the gay couple who was not satisfied with nice, but wanted subservience. It’s just like ISLAM, only Islamists like to throw gay men from high buildings, but Islam wants everyone to submit to the mullahs and imams and muftis and the LGBTQ movement wants you to acknowledge IT as the supreme moral dictator.

        And now for the unfounded recriminations from the hypocritical haters on the left…

        1. Guy Warinner says:

          The problem is that id you allow one group of people to discriminate you are opening up the doors for or anyone to be discriminated against. You don’t see it because your a white Christian but look at the other side of the coin to see what can be done to you. What comes around goes around…

          1. JOHN MAHER says:

            AMEN, BROTHER GUY, AMEN, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

          2. John Owens says:

            On this very blog, a white Christian, especially a MALE white Christian, is verbally discriminated against, BECAUSE he is white, and because he is Christian. A white Christian will draw a lot of insults and snide commentary just for speaking here. I don’t mind that, but you have to realize you are preaching horrendous overkill to prevent future theoretical discrimination. I am saying not baking a cake for someone for ANY reason does not constitute actionable DISCRIMINATION in any just society. Now, in this country, you can sue anybody for anything. That doesn’t mean you will win, but like I said somewhere else on here, nothing shows love and tolerance like a lawsuit. You could also say, “Love me or I will take you to court.” None of that is going to gain any love for gays.

          3. LtBil Drat says:

            By that, I would agree with in total. No two bites of the apple. Your resolution also mandates that Jews would have to make a Nazi cake, Bendme Sanders, Obozo and Killary Klansmen would have to make a Trump cake. Blacks would have to make a KKK Cake etc. So either NO group can discriminate or it’s allowed by the bakery owner in ANY instance.

          4. John Owens says:

            EXACTLY, LtBil Drat. They’ll be singing out the other end if that happens.

        2. Gaffanon says:

          Such anger and unfounded hatred. You Believe you are so correct, you aren’t disagreeing. You are just spoiling for a fight. I dont care what side of they fence you are on.

          1. John Owens says:

            Yep, Let the unfounded recriminations fly. “anger and unfounded hatred.” You’re funny!

      2. Mark Arrand says:

        I understand where you are coming from. Like I said in my post, I am a neutral observer. I take no sides. The reason is that if you side with the left hand, the right hand is angered. Side with the right hand, the left hand is angered. I see both sides. It is still a slippery slope no matter which side one takes. I just pray that a peaceful resolution is reached that will benefit both sides.

        1. Guy Warinner says:

          Actually it is not a slippery slope other than it is the law it is also in the Constitution of America that all men are created equal not just the Christians, not just the Muslims, not just the Racist, Not just the Liberals, not just the LGBT but all men (men being used as all human beings) are equal and discrimination is all about someone being more equal than someone else. As far as religion goes it is the greatest supporter of racism and expecting to be more equal than everyone else that is not of their religion…

          1. John Owens says:

            …as opposed to the gay couple who wants to SUE people to prove they are equal, meaning they are not, or they wouldn’t be having to sue to prove it.

          2. Guy Warinner says:

            John, the gay couple are asking for equality and nothing more. I wonder how many bakeries they went to and were denied service before they were frustrated enough to sue…?

          3. John Owens says:

            Any self-respecting homosexual would have hired a homosexual caterer and not had to worry about it, and their wedding and reception would have been FABULOUS.

  20. Zea Weis says:

    As always..Hate hides behind a religion.

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      YOU GOT THAT R I G H T 100 % ZEA WEIS, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

    2. John Owens says:

      “Satan himself is disguised as an angel of light.” (Paul the Apostle)

      1. JOHN MAHER says:

        OWINS and CLAPIE, HAVE YOU BLOKES READ the PIED PIPER of HAMLIN ??? DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

      2. Kathy says:

        Agreed, but some have no eyes to see. Let them have their choices, and we’ll have ours.

        1. John Owens says:

          I don’t think anyone deprived anyone of choice, except the gay couple tried to deprive the baker of a choice as to what kind of marriage they support.

  21. Shilo says:

    Personally, I think if there is going to be True Equality and Freedom, it can’t be for a selected group. If this baker owns a business, I think he has the legal right to exercise his freedom. No one should be forced to do anything, just because others insist. Black people had to ride in the back seat for a long time and they endured the suffering, and still do, yet I don’t hear them insisting in their own way. The cry for justice is that True Equality be upheld for ALL, not special treatment. Every one has the legal right to be free to live out their convictions, without forcing others so you can have your way.

    Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

    I can say this and be neutral, though i am bi-sexual.

    I believe love is love, but i don’t believe in forcing others to do what you want them to do, violating the very law of Love.

    I would say, bake it yourself, or find someone else. The marriage must happen, right? unless your motives are
    something else all together..?

    i mean, who lets something like that get in the way of their important day?

    1. Guy Warinner says:

      That is just a childish view of reality. You are expecting everybody to accept Christian discrimination and make other discriminations OK if no one is complaining. It can’t be both ways at once, that is a paradox either no one can discriminate in public conveyances, services and stores or you can make discrimination the law of the land. Logic dictates that if you accept discrimination for one group you set a legal precedent to allow discrimination at any and all levels…

      1. John Owens says:

        It’s not any more childish than thinking this Peter Pan Never-never land Utopia thing is going to fly or that the world will be better with NO discrimination. That’s patently ignorant. The fact is, no society can survive or even exist without discrimination. People just have different opinions about against whom to discriminate or how. There is your paradox. Any society discriminates and necessarily so. It should discriminate based on behavior. Society discriminates which schools one should attend, who should be incarcerated, or otherwise institutionalized. An intelligent society discriminates who can enter it and who needs to leave, who belongs, and who does not. Your blanket statements are too absolute, betraying naiveté or extremism, one or the other.

    2. Kathy says:

      Great point, and get in the way of their whole lives now. Go enjoy your life and doing things you enjoy! Or…… Maybe fighting IS what they enjoy? Maybe. Right?? No??

  22. Guy Warinner says:

    This is getting ridiculous, why do Christians feel they should have more rights that they will always refuse to let others have. They want the right to refuse LGBT couples but would cry to high heaven if they were being refused for being a Christian. Either everyone is equal or are we living in a caste system like in India where no one is equal to the caste above them but more equal to the caste beneath them. If you want to have equal rights they need to be served to everyone not just who you think justifies your product or services or equal rights…

    1. John Owens says:

      I just gotta call BS on this, Guy. Christians are the least vocal group in the country. If they WERE vocal and insistent, there wouldn’t be any “gay” rights to speak of, because the cities where there are gay parades would be smoldering. You might keep that in mind when you are criticizing Christians. Christians are the tolerant ones. You think OUR tolerance is YOUR right. It is not. We do it out of charity. YOUR tolerance is what is at question here. Not the other way around. Not anyone else.

  23. Stefan says:

    The baker provokes the couple by not working for them. After all, making a cake is not a religious act but a piece of work. No more, no less. The couple provoke the baker by starting a lawsuit and a press story. They had an alternative to got to another shop. Their marriage was not in danger. Self righteousness and pride on both side. Not very Christian, not very educated the whole lot. Sorry to say that!

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      VERY INTELLIGENT VIEW / COMMENT, STEFAN HAVE a PIECE of CAKE, BRAVO ! DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

    2. John Owens says:

      Baking a wedding cake is participating in a religious ceremony. Like a Levite shoveling sacrificial sheep manure at the ancient Temple. Playing music at a wedding is also part of a religious ceremony. A wedding cake is not just a dessert. If you are not religious, you cannot understand these things, and if you are not religious, you have no standing to pronounce what is Christian and what is not, nor what is educated or not. Sorry to tell you that.

      1. Stefan says:

        I have never seen the cake in the church. But that is not the point. The point is, both are not behaving like Christians. Provokation and confrontation is not what helps.

        1. John Owens says:

          But I am telling you, the baker did not provoke anything. What the gay couple is saying is, “Do what we command or you are not acting like a Christian, and we will sue you,” as if THEY are the arbiters of what is Christian. YOU are saying, to prove you are a Christian, you must accept the Heathens’ belief. TOTALLY off-base. That’s like saying if you don’t wear pink you aren’t secure in your manhood. Then a man HAS to wear pink to prove he is a man, BUT IF HE’S A REAL MAN, HE DOESN’T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE, THEREFORE IF HE DOESN’T LIKE PINK, HE DOESN’T WEAR IT. The baker was very nice and made offers to accommodate them, but that was not good enough for them because they want Christians to accept gay marriage. That will never happen with true Christians. Tolerance, yes. Acceptance, no. Now, while ISIS is throwing gay men off buildings in Iraq and Syria, WE ARE ARGUING OVER A CAKE. The baker was ACTING like a Christian by NOT calling them names and throwing them out and throwing heavy objects at them, and trying to be helpful in ways that did not violate his beliefs. You can’t dictate what is acting like a Christian. It is UNCHRISTIAN for you to be so judgmental.

          1. Stefan says:

            Matthew 9,9-13

          2. Guy Warinner says:

            Yes the baker did provoke something or this case would not be in the courts. The baker is expecting to get the privileged to discriminate based on sexual preference (which is not a preference because there is not one person that goes out and says “Gee, I want to be gay so I can get beat up, discriminated against, ridiculed, abused, mocked” because those are really fun things to do, it is a DNA issue or an issue of what a doctor gave the mother during pregnancy. Those are facts that have been proven not serialized in an archaic book about the Ancient Semitic Hebrew and their mythical God and the Ancient Semitic Hebrew’s view of how the world works.
            Finally John the baker was not acting like a Christian he was acting like a God judging and punishing them for his perceived sins of their actions. The Christian Bible says that only God or Jesus Christ has the right to judge and punish but most white men take this to heart and take over the job of God so they can judge and punish who ever they decide is evil…

          3. John Owens says:

            GUY! IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS NOT BAKING A CAKE FOR SOMEONE CONSIDERED GOD-LIKE JUDGEMENT? Your statements are insane, the product of a sick, deluded mind with no real-world experience.

            And Stefan, I am familiar with the verses you mention, but I HAVE broken bread with all manner of people on three continents, but I have not participated in all manner of weddings. Jesus did not cater a wedding here. On this issue, the ones siding with the gay couple are totally off base. The use of any Christian principle here is totally opportunistic and inappropriate, particularly so if you do not call yourself a Christian. Pagans do not dictate to Christians how to act like Christ. Christ at no time ever told people that He blessed their sin. He forgave sin, but He did not say that it WASN’T sin, and He didn’t participate in it. Best I can tell, the baker did not condemn these people. He was just not comfortable fulfilling their wish. Guy wants to turn it into hateful judgement, but that’s just so he can get his way, not because he believes it.

          4. John Owens says:

            And Guy, please provide some evidence somewhere of a DNA issue causing homosexuality. PLEASE! Just come up with a plausible reason that DNA could have stood the rigors of evolution and procreated itself.

      2. Stefan says:

        The key to this thing, if one wants to go deeper in my view is the teaching of Matthew 9,9-13. Jesus dines with people considered sinners by many and explains it with the priority of mercy over sacrifice. This quote from Hosea 6 appears later again when Jesus talks about the Sabbath.

        Learning – again just my point of view – would be that if the baker was guided by merci he would made the cake and even offered to attend the party and if the couple would have been guided by merci, they would have invited the baker to come to their party even if he had declined to make the case.

        1. Guy Warinner says:

          Stefan, that is the actual Christian POV on how to treat sinners but many have decided that since God has not struck down all of the homosexuals in the world it is their duty to step in where God is not doing what they think is his job is…

          1. Stefan says:

            Guy, exactly right. Making oneself a judge of a behaviour that does no harm anyone is dangerous for the soul, the psychological well being or the karma. Even if I would think that homosexuality was evil, who make me judge of it? Matthew 7 has a clear message about that.

        2. John Owens says:

          Then the baker would have been condoning and giving his blessing to what he believes to be an unholy union, which is not showing love to everyone else. He showed love by not showing hate, and by courteous respectful refusal.

        3. John Owens says:

          Stefan, people who do not follow Christ cannot teach you how to follow Christ. Please do not be misguided by those who have an agenda other than the Kingdom of God. Not one person on Earth is without sin and not one has room to judge another, but we are commanded to judge righteous judgement, rather than by appearances (John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. ) That does not mean to condemn anyone, but to make a determination about what is good and acceptable and what is not. If the baker had tried to do what Guy is saying he was doing, he would have done it like a Muslim and killed the gay couple. He did not. He showed love, mercy, kindness, but not submission. Guy thinks Christians should submit but then they will no longer be Christians.

          1. Stefan says:

            The real problem or the ethical question here in my view is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Everyone seems to take sides here to defend either baker or couple.

            The question that I ask myself just for me personnally without claiming that it is the right answer for everyone: what would Jesus have done being in the shoes of the baker? what being a wedding guest of the couple? If we want to give a Christian answer that would be the point to think and meditate about. Someone who forgave the people who crucified him. Would he really prefer the law over mercy? Why does the old Hosea 6:6 quote appear twice in Matthew both time in the context were Jesus has made a choice between the law and the mercy towards a human being?

            For me this is guidance enough. Others may think differently.

          2. John Owens says:

            Nobody on Earth is qualified to answer with any finality what Jesus would do. Jesus was a builder and not a baker. He left His business to His brothers and mother to go and preach the Kingdom of God.

            I agree that homosexuality is not the issue here, but apparently most of the people on the blog think it is. The issue, in my opinion, is whether the gay couple had a LEGAL RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT ANOTHER PERSON BAKE THEM A CAKE. I say, no they did not, nor do I nor does President Trump nor did Barak Obama. You can NOT demand others do as YOU wish in a free country.

            This is why “Health Care” can NEVER EVER be a RIGHT. That would mean that any “health care” professional would not be free. They would HAVE to work for others, even if they did not want to do so, and at a wage determined by others. Their freedom would be stripped from them. No couple, black, yellow, gay, straight, green, purple, Innuit, can demand that somebody bake them a cake. You just have no right to demand that.

            Sorry. You know I’m right, even though you hate it.

          3. Stefan says:

            John, in reply to you comment: yes, you observe correctly, everyone here speaks about the law and about being right.

            That is why I quoted Matthew 9,9-13 in the first place. The Pharisees talk about the law and the sin and in the end even refuse to sit with the sinners on one table while Christ points out that the law is less relevant than mercy.

            I know I am repeating myself and and hope no one gets annoyed by this.

            As long as we stick to the legalistic arguments we stay stuck in the world view of the pharisees. And core of Christian teaching is, that this world view does not lead to good things.

          4. John Owens says:

            I appreciate what you are saying, Stefan, but the gay couple went the way of the Pharisees. These people only want us to act like Christians when it means they can walk on us. The rest of the time they want us to go along with what they are doing or at least ignore it and not make a sound about it. That is their idea of love because they only know Satan’s love and not God’s.

  24. Steven J Frey says:

    The couple stated that they wanted a generic wedding cake. Interesting. How did the subject of a same-sex wedding ever come up? The military took a lot of heat for their “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, but I see the merits of it.

  25. Amber Fry says:

    I honestly don’t understand why this has to be about sides. I mean both are free to make choices. Any business has a right to not serve any customer for any reason under the clear understanding that boycots are a possibility because of it. A customer has every right to go elsewhere for their business and find what they are looking for without the negativity of a fight over it all. It would be one thing if the man was nasty and violent about his refusal… did he say something derogatory or yell and condemn them or throw tihngs at them? If not I’d let him be and find someone else.

    1. Kathy says:

      Exactly!

    2. John Owens says:

      I agree. The article states that the baker was apologetic and helpful. The couple intentionally chose a Christian baker because they wanted to make a Christian validate their marriage by baking their cake. THEY do not want to “live and let live”. They want everyone to think they are wonderful.

      1. Caleb says:

        How in the world would they know he’s Christian?
        And if they did, they probably thought being Christian means he follows the teachings of Christ? And we all know Christ’s golden rule. So is denying a good to his patrons really doing onto others as he have done to him.

        1. John Owens says:

          Again, you only care about a person acting like a Christian if it means getting what you want. If it doesn’t mean that, you don’t care. Did the gay couple follow that golden rule? Why would you expect the baker to follow it and not expect the gay couple to follow it?

          1. Caleb says:

            Now you’re making things up. Who knows if the gay couple followed the golden rule?They patronized a business and were turned away. It hasn’t been reported that they treated anyone not the way they would want to be treated.
            And you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say a Christian needed to do anything to “give me my way.” You’re starting to come off as delusional.

          2. John Owens says:

            That would be you coming across as delusional, Caleb. I am quite rational and reasonable. I also have a lifetime of experiences on which to draw. The golden rule is universal and cuts both ways. Either live by it and expect it of others, or don’t live by it and don’t expect it of others. You’re just being obtuse now. I’m saying, if they followed the golden rule, they wouldn’t sue. Not hard to understand. You want Christians to act like Christians if it means giving the gay couple what they want, but if acting like a Christian means not taking part in a gay wedding, you DON’T want them acting like a Christian. ERGO, YOU are saying, in THIS CASE, in order to behave like a Christian, the ONLY option is to play this minor role in a gay wedding. That is your position, but goes against 1900 years of Christian teaching. You may think your position will someday be the majority position, AND IT MAY, but at this time, it is not. Not even close. It is perhaps the majority position ON THIS BLOG, but ULC is not indicative of the population as a whole. Most traditionalists will have nothing to do with the ULC, because it only exists for NON-traditionalists or people who are not actually religious at all, but still want to be ministers of nothingness.

          3. Caleb says:

            Funny John, I don’t remember Jesus ever saying,”do unto others as you would have done unto you…except if you’re homosexual”

        2. Guy Warinner says:

          John Owens, baking a cake is not part of a wedding, the baker was not invited, he was just asked to do his job and his job was not judging another person and punishing them in the only way he knew how by discrimination. Homophobia is a disease of the weak and unintelligent mind…

  26. Jon says:

    A few years ago, a religious blogger contacted bakers in his area and asked if they had had any experiences with being asked to do cakes for gay weddings. Many had. Most had no problem. One Christian baker shared a way to be respectful to the couple, and true to her understanding of Scripture. She stated that she made the cake with ingredients they wanted, and made as tasty a cake as she could. Then frosted the cake in the flavor and color requested. Then she took the “fixings” to the couple in the shop to create the message they wanted. Let them practice, and then let them pay for the cake with what they needed to put their own message on it. IMHO, a smart, compassionate, kind believer who created a loving space with this couple. In the story, the baker only offered to show them another bakery, and again, IMHO, could lose the case. Plus, another suggestion, any businessperson should not even mention their religious beliefs, but can refuse services if they wish, as long as they do not single out a customer and demonstrate bias or discrimination. Frankly, we evangelicals have a long history of being neither wise nor sensitive in dealing with those who disagree. IMHO, of course.

    1. John Owens says:

      If the couple had been wise, tolerant, or sensitive, they might have avoided this whole conflagration.

    2. Caleb says:

      Jon that story is refreshing. She definitely gets it. She walks the walk.
      John Owens, are you privy to inside information on how this couple behaved?
      I read no reports of how the couple acted unwise, intolerant or insensitive.
      What did you read contrary and where?

      1. John Owens says:

        I didn’t say they did, other than the fact that they obviously had a tantrum and sued. YOU and YOUR BUDDY keep saying the Christian was being judgmental, as thought either of you were there. You know nothing about this case except the bare reported stuff (of which you obviously did not read it all), and yet you have firm opinions about the baker that have no basis whatsoever except for your dark fantasies about Christians. I postulated that everything was not nearly so cut and dried as you two were making out.

        1. Caleb says:

          John read your own posts, you’re constantly criticizing the couple and giving your interpretation of how they behaved. Not only are there no reports they behaved badly, you weren’t even there to observe their behavior.
          As for suing it is their right when they felt discriminated against. That neither shows they behaved badly or implies that they threw a tantrum.
          Since they group you roll with doesn’t hide or whatever you said before, then you should be better exposed to the world outside. You’re so worried about this baker and how the couple behaved and your unsubstantiated claim, that homosexuality can’t be explained with science, and that Guy is an atheist. What is your problem? What does this all matter to you so much? Are you gay or do you own a bakery? Were you once gay but “choose” to be straight hence makes you an expert above all scientists? You did say you have to choose not to fantasize about men in an earlier post.

          1. John Owens says:

            Blah blah blah, dee dee dee, yada yada yada. You go around in circles over and over, and you can’t stand it if I don’t indulge your little quasi-thoughts. I have to iggy you, except to say blah blah blah, etc. Now, go sniff Guy some more.

      2. Caleb says:

        John you are babyman, can’t defend his own opinion. No backbone, no original thought, you bore me at this point. Go back to the biker rattlesnake backwoods church and stay in your WASP bubble

        1. John Owens says:

          ARF! ARF! He says in his high-pitched bark, wagging his little Chihuahua tail, hoping to impress Cavus.

          1. Guy Warinner says:

            It is sad that you are mentally retarded as well as ignorant, stupid, bigot and a liar, etc. I could go on but the list it too long…

          2. John Owens says:

            ROFL!

          3. Guy Warinner says:

            Thank you John Owens for supporting my last post…

    3. Guy Warinner says:

      Your story is nice but it is still discrimination for both of them. Baking a wedding cake is not condoning same sex marriage, baking a cake is not being part of the same sex wedding, baking the cake is not supporting LBGT life style, baking a cake is just a job for a baker.
      What he did was wrong in three ways.
      1. It was the law in Colorado to be a public enterprise you have to licensed and agree to follow the law and if the baker could not in good conscience follow the law he should have closed up his bakery and made cakes for any non-LGBT clients (A home business can usually make so many transactions before he is not allowed to make any more transactions until the time period (usually a month in Washington) before he can make more Non-LGBT cakes without a business license..
      2. It is part of the Constitution (All men are created equal) this does not mean that certain people are more equal than others (though some people think this is true especially in politics).
      3. This is in several parts; first it is not the job of the baker to judge and punish the gay couple per the Bible it is God’s job you know “He who is without sin throw the first stone”. Secondly it does not follow what the mythical JC told Christians on how to live, you know the Golden Rule from the Bible “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. And finally what the Bible says about homosexuality is based not on accurate information about homosexuality but from ignorance and fear of something different, many other cultures understood this and accepted them for what they were (the Native Americans called them backwards people and they had a very high status in the tribe)…

  27. Charlene says:

    In the fight to make sure everyone has rights we are actually taking away rights. If an organization or business is not own or operated by the government it too should have the right to defend and operate accordingly. As a Christian the Bible tells us that homosexuality is wrong. However I have many friends and family members who are gay. I love them dearly and they love me. But we respectfully agree to disagree on religion. That’s what tolarance is all about. I would not force them to go to my church and be offended nor would they ask or force me to participate in a gay pride event. I say be who you are but don’t be angry with anyone you is not in agreement with you. As far as the cake maker he is a privately owned business. He had the right to serve or not serve who he wants. He did offer them an alternative baker. And why would you want your cake make by someone who disagreed with your relationship. I wouldn’t give my business to an atheist.

    1. Kathy says:

      Excellent!!! As I wouldn’t go into a sadist shop and ask for a King James version of the Bible.

      1. Caleb says:

        But would you go to a bakery to ask for a wedding cake?
        You’re example respectfully doesn’t fit with the situation at hand.

    2. Caleb says:

      As for CO law, descrimination on sexual orientation is illegal.
      Personally, I wouldn’t want a good or service from someone that would see me as unequal to all other of hid customers. But that’s not the point.
      Does he turn away straight couplesf or wearing blended fabric?
      Since when does he as a professed Christian, get to pick which sin is bad and which sin is good?
      He says he’s Christian but is treating people that were nice enough to patronize his business, as if there feelings are of no matter.
      You seem to come from a good place Charlene but you might want to rethink this one.

      1. Caleb says:

        from my phone so forgive the typos
        “unequal to all of his other customers”
        “turn away straight couples for wearing blended fabrics”

  28. Clogsodn says:

    Granted, it’s a difficult situation, and it hurts to think about the fact that if we allow freedom for everyone, we have to allow freedom for everyone. That means while we are all free to love and associate with whomever we choose in our private lives, we are also free to exclude whomever we choose in our private lives. Business that do not receive government support are free to choose whom they will serve. Businesses do this all the time and have done this from the beginning of time. I’m not saying it’s a good or bad thing. It is just reality. As long as they are not receiving government funds and are not causing some kind of material harm to someone, we can’t stop them from doing this. Personally, I would not want to force someone to make food for me….back in the kitchen…where I can’t see what they’re doing.

  29. Kathy says:

    The issue here isn’t about one Baker and his values on homosexual issues. The argument lies as to here to draw the in the sand where one person’s rights to their beliefs ends and another’s begins.

    The gay couple screams of intolerance of their beliefs. However, if the court rules in their favor, that is then being intolerant of the bakers rights to his beliefs.

    I believe we already have a line in the sand that deals with this. It’s private sector business.

    If this were a state funded business, the couple would have a foot to stand on, because the government has a responsibility to all its citizens.

    In this country, no matter how anyone else feels about his choice, the baker, has the same right to tolerance as the couple.

    And in this case, the baker will pay for his publicly stated convictions with losing this sale, and maybe many more sales.

    On the other hand, he may gain the business of many others who appreciate his convictions, and…… Life goes on.

  30. Randy Hoyum says:

    Any business has the right to refuse service. Take your money elsewhere please. Just forcing your beliefs upon another person is wrong.
    So they were even offered another bakery to inquire services?? Shut up, go away and let me run my business as I choose. The government cannot tell a business who they must serve.
    The SCOTUS had better throw out this ludicrous waste ok for time.

  31. Shane Westerbur says:

    I am not anti-gay , but I am pro religious freedom. Forcing someone to do something that is against their religion is wrong. Why would a gay couple want a cake baked by someone who doesn’t agree with their lifestyle? There is most likely a gay Baker down the street who would gladly serve them. Taking someone else’s rights away from them is not the answer to stop hate,it will only fuel the fire.

    1. Steven J Frey says:

      Perfectly said.

  32. Steven J Frey says:

    I own a hearse. Yes, a hearse. Anyways, I was contacted by a woman last year asking me if she could rent my hearse for her wedding (they had a Halloween theme). This person was courteous enough to let me know that it was a gay wedding, just in case I would have a problem with it. She didn’t do that to make a big stink about it, she did it so that I had the opportunity to say no, based on my beliefs.

  33. Michael Shields says:

    1 This all started in 2012 in Denver CO.
    2 Colorado did not pass into law to allow same sex marriage until 2014.
    One could argue on time line alone the Baker was not willing to condone breaking the law of the land as well as the laws of God with his christian back ground.
    Others will argue that God says to be kind to other and the such.
    God also says to not judge others.
    Yet that is what is happening on both sides of this argument by many people religious or not, strait, gay, for or against it is being said.
    We have a choice in life to believe in our own set of beliefs without infringing on others if his belief is to not participate then so be it. There are others who will. He nor anyone else should be forced to compromise their own beliefs.
    If you feel the need to force your beliefs on someone’s beliefs then I propose this to you.
    I am in need of medical treatment multiple surgeries on my spine to prevent me from becoming parallelized, and I am demanding everyone on this thread or replying to this thread contact me and give me 1,000 dollars by contacting me. Because I am living on 1000 dollars a month and only my wife can work right now.
    Unlike the couple who wanted to have a cake, I have a real life crisis going on.

    1. Tanya Alexis Notkoff says:

      Michael, Thank you for the info and sorry for your predicament and I hope every single person who thinks ANY couple with such an aggrandized sense of self-entitlement that they should behave litigiously just because they can, while being well aware of the homeless problem in their domain, does send you 1K because you (and me) have real problems, struggle, and not because we chose this. I didn’t choose to be mangled or permanently maimed by others, but here I am, with my disabled Vet (20 years he served!) and we just did a common law marriage in CO because it was free. I baked our cake! If the baker had simply refused service and not given a reason, or better yet, had he lied, we wouldn’t be talking about this. Should we then conclude that to lie is better? (ACLU is known for lying–see Wendy Kaminer’s book.) And sadly, I would have at least expected a “spiritual community” to understand the concept of Food Energetics. At least you provided good info and (sad) realism. Blessed Be. Perspective is everything!!

  34. Mistydawn Carter says:

    This Baker has been in the court room for going on five years. His business and accounts have to be tanked by now, but what about the gay couple? Did they not get married? Why over a wedding cake? I’m pagan. I know I’m not going to be able to get married in a Catholic church. It goes against their very tenants of faith. I guess what I’m trying to say is the gay couple wants fair treatment without giving it in return. Why would they want to risk getting a cake baked by a guy who obviously doesn’t support thier beliefs and happiness? Everyone has a choice over who they do business with and honestly I don’t fault this gentleman. He even went out of his way to try to get someone else who would handle the cake.

  35. saralamb says:

    In a different arena: several dress designers refused to design an outfit for our current First Lady, because they didn’t like her husband’s political viewpoints. I haven’t heard about a lawsuit against them! She just went to a designer who would be happy to take her money.

    1. John Owens says:

      Oh, but Sara, those were leftists. It’s DIFFERENT when THEY discriminate. It’s JUSTIFIED, because, well, because they’re RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.

      I’m being facetious, of course, but you just made an EXCELLENT point. I wish I’d thought of it. I wonder if any of them will consider it. NAH! Probably not. In-depth reasoning is not the forté of the left.

  36. John Owens says:

    ISIS is throwing gay men off of the tops of buildings, and we are arguing about gay couples not being blessed by bakers and how that is or is not discriminatory and one side is calling Christians haters and bigots. I can’t believe how supercilious all of this is.

  37. Jim says:

    What’s interesting is that if you have an occupation where you have to be licensed by the local, state or federal government, you would not be allowed to discriminate against this couple because they are gay. For example, I am licensed to sell real estate in two states. (I don’t actually work in real estate. It was just something to do.) The law very clearly states that we cannot discriminate based on many factors, one of which is sexual orientation. So the law can force a licensed real estate agent to sell a home, probably the biggest purchase of a lifetime, to a gay couple, but the law cannot force a guy that mixes a little flour, water and sugar together to sell a cake to a gay couple? How ridiculous! You’re in the business of selling baked goods for money, not judging the lifestyle of your customers. Get your head out of your ass and get back in the kitchen and bake the damn cake! Out of principle I would never go to that bakery again, and I would convince as many people as I could to do the same.

    1. John Owens says:

      He wasn’t “judging” the lifestyle. He was judging how much he wanted to make the cake.

    2. John Owens says:

      As one lady pointed out here, some dress-makers refused to make dresses for our First Lady, some of them the same ones who were fawning all over the last First Lady. This was over political views. I didn’t see any lawsuits. I didn’t hear any of you criticizing the dress-makers. Just how many double standards will you allow yourself?

  38. Bob says:

    I am an atheist and own a chain of restaurants. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to refuse service to evangelical christians as I disagree with everything they stand for. My attorney assures me, however, that I cannot do that as it would be illegal. How is the baker’s case any different?.

    1. John Owens says:

      For one, the baker was kind. You don’t come across as being that way. Also, your bigotry against “evangelical Christians” is evident. The baker didn’t refuse to sell them a cake. He refused to make them a special gay wedding cake. Since that work is art, he found that particular opus uninspiring. You, on the other hand, are just being obnoxious. The fact that you say you have discussed it with your attorney shows that you have a history of this unfounded hatred of evangelicals. If you EVER have a run-in with one, it’s going to be a hate-crime. It will be like a white-supremist who gets into a legitimate fight with someone not white. If the white guy wins, because of his background, he may still have a huge legal hurdle because everyone knows he’s prejudice. If I were you, I’d pray to your un-god to stop being such a hater.

      1. William Clapie says:

        At what point do you draw the line between “right to refuse service to anyone” and “area/type//race” prejudice?
        Do business owners have no rights in this area? (Evangelical Christians can be overbearing but like most people they understand the word “no”)

        1. JOHN MAHER says:

          I THINK that ALL the COMMENTS made on July 5,2017, MAKES the MAJORITY of the SO CALLED CHRISTIAN SOLDIERs SOUND LIKE RIGHT WING CAKE EATING CLOSET QUEENS, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A, I SHYTE ON YOUR CAKE,BUDDY GUYs………………..

        2. John Owens says:

          …and thank you, William.

          1. William Clapie says:

            🙂

      2. Bob says:

        “Unfounded” hatred of evangelicals????? What sealed environment do you live in? Look for the repression of the rights of others and you will find these ‘god-fearing’ flag-wrapped Evangelicals leading the charge. As for being a ‘hater’, I note your many contributions to this thread that define you as a hater much more than myself..

        1. John Owens says:

          Bob, you’re full of swill. You call me a Hater because I’m not an Enabler. I won’t go along with the swill you haters are dishing out. Just for kicks, how about you define Evangelical for us? Then you can tell us when you ever had an Evangelical wrap a flag around himself and do anything unkind to YOU. You can also show me who they are oppressing. Who is being oppressed here? Nobody stopped anybody from doing anything here. That would require someone being deprived of something. You seem slightly hysterical in your criticism of these Evangelicals you hate so much. Have they ever actually done anything mean to you? Or do you just hate them because you are phobic? Are you phobic of God, or just run-of-the-mill neurotic? It really pains me that you are such a hateful hater full of hate.

          I believe everyone here will see that you are living in a dark fantasy world created by some mad cartoonist in order to brainwash you, rather like a Wagner opera.

  39. William Clapie says:

    To all the bible thumpers using it to justify spewing hate, how about this?

    Romans 13:8-10
    Chapter Parallel Compare
    8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
    Many passages are the same. Also, the interpretations of “homosexuality”? Sorry, didn’t exist. A lot of “love” that is expressed in the bible is “lost” when men and women turn to other forms of love. So, interpret it as you will, scholars are still unsure so, how could you be correct?

    1. John Owens says:

      Just a minor point, William.

      To a “bible-thumper” like myself, adultery and fornication are pretty much the same, and when we commit them we are NOT showing love– to ourselves, God, and whomever else may be affected by our actions. It is not a matter of hate to observe this. It is NOT love to an ovum to fertilize it and then forget about it. It is NOT love to spread STDs. This is why we do not support polygamy, child marriage, marriage to animals, group marriage, or same-sex marriage, because we see it (and I believe we see it correctly, from a biblical standpoint) as being fornication/adultery.

      The TRADITIONAL interpretation of fornication is sex with anyone outside of a one-man/one-woman marriage. Now, anyone can argue that as much as they desire, but that is the TRADITIONAL understanding. I am not posting it for the sake of argument, so please don’t give me any crap about it. I am just explaining it for those who lack an upbringing in a TRADITIONAL family and a TRADITIONAL church.

      In the spirit of love, I think the baker showed much more love than the gay couple.

      1. William Clapie says:

        Hey man, thanks for the reply. Apologies for the misunderstanding. “Bible Thumper” in my loose rant above does describe an extreme person. We all know them on all sides of every fence. They will scream “We are right!!@!” till they are blue in the face. Also, to expect “crap” from me is a minor insult. I accept that because what I wrote is the same. In plain true belief, Hate the sin, Forgive the sinner? Also, I love your opinion of the baker. He did the right thing. Belief or not!

        1. John Owens says:

          William, this blog needs more people like you here. You and I are not the same but we can relate and have some respect for each other. If there are no people like us here, the screaming liberals will take over and there will be absolutely no balance or reasoning here. Oh, and I wasn’t expecting crap from you about this portion of the blog, but from some of the shriekers on here.

          1. John Owens says:

            Like the one just below. V

      2. Caleb says:

        John, you keep harping on the gay couple’s bad behavior. They were denied a service by a business in the public sector so they sued. That’s not bad behavior, the baker broke the CO law.

  40. Rev Cathy says:

    No they should discriminate. They aren’t the one’s that are going to eat it or isn’t for them. No one is living their lives. What happens in people’s house hold is no one’s business.

    1. John Owens says:

      The baker did not make it his business what goes on in the gay couple’s household. The baker decided what business went on in his establishment. THAT was his business. I don’t see how there can be any other point of view. It was HIS business.

      1. Guy Warinner says:

        Question: Was this person’s store licensed by the city or state to be able to sell in a public place and is required by law to follow the EEO laws of the state and federal Governments? If so he is breaking the law that he registered his store to be under and he promised to follow.
        Again it is all about Christians getting more privileges than everyone else. No one is allowed to discriminate against Race, Color, creed, sexual preference or religious affiliation. The Constitution and the law says all men are equal and need to be treated the same. Finally the Bible says it is his job to judge and punish, so basically the baker and everyone that is siding with the baker are either going against God’s Holy Plan or taking over God’s job as well as breaking the laws of God and man, which is more of a sin than asking to have a wedding cake made…

        1. John Owens says:

          You need to read the EEO laws. I PROMISE they do not support your position. And again, you say the baker was judging and punishing, when he did no such thing. That would mean you are being dishonest. You also pretend to quote the Bible, which would mean you are being profane. The Constitution does NOT say every merchant has to do business with every person who enters their store.

          1. JOHN MAHER says:

            JOHN OWINS get off the BLOG and get back to UR FAMILIEs FOX FAKE NEWs and the tRUMPs, YEAH and READ a BOOK if YOUR ABLE MABEL, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP !!!

  41. Rev Cathy says:

    They shouldn’t discriminate.

  42. John Clark says:

    The only discrimination, in any world, should be in electrical circuits!!!

  43. John Benson says:

    What ever happened to LOVE! The greatest commandment of all! Love is for all, not just Christians, but the good Lord was specific that we were not to judge! When I see anyone treating another differently because of dislike or hate, I know its not of God because he excepts all for who they are! A good Christian and human being should except everyone for who they are and love them even if we don’t agree! Leave all the judging to the judges and the good Lord! God Bless you all!

    1. Guy Warinner says:

      You have the proper Christian POV and not a homophobic view of the Bible. Great point…

    2. John Owens says:

      John, I suppose you are speaking of all the wonderful love the gay couple and all of their proponents here have expressed toward Christians. Of course, they aren’t really motivated to show love and since they do not worship my God they do not really know what love is. For their sake, I will tell you what love is:

      Love is keeping the Commandments. No one said without fault or fail, but that is the definition of love. 1 John 5:2 and 3

      Anything else is made up. Nobody judged anybody here, except the left-leaning people keep judging Christians. They keep trying to tell us how to behave like Christians. According to them, the only way we can be good Christians, is if we approve and support every stupid thing they do, which would mean we are not Christians at all, but heathens.

      1. John Benson says:

        No, I do not condone nor agree with the attack on Christianity whether it is physical or verbal! Goes against the commandment of love. But because they don’t agree or even might hate me for what I believe, Jesus Christ said we are to forgive 7 times by 7 times. Childish rants by angry people only bother me if I let them, and trust me, its difficult at times.
        I believe as Christians we should treat everyone with respect as Gods creations, with Love. I can love even if I do agree or approve with anothers views and opinions. Its leading by example. Yes its tough when you witness the hatred towards Gods people, I don’t get it! But to hate back, again goes against everything the Bible teaches.
        The Bible is clear that his people were persecuted in the past and will experience much more of it towards end times. Brother we are heading in that direction.

        “Let he that has no sin cast the first stone”

        John, the good Lord is coming soon and I can trust in Him that all the bad guys will get theres!

        I wish you well in the Lord, God Bless!

        1. John Owens says:

          Thank you, John Benson. I am only trying to keep the Faith once delivered. I do not wish evil on anyone, but I will defend truth and justice to the best of my ability. I will not hate these people, but I can hate what they do and say, and I will mock them from time to time, just so they will have to face their own lack of knowledge.

  44. Bill Fox says:

    Think of a business license as a type of Mark of the Beast. The government (the Beast) determines the laws of the land, state, county, and municipality. If you apply for a business license, you agree to all the laws and ordinances of the Beast. The Bible commands you to obey the authorities, who are allowed by God to be in power. (Romans 13 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
    Obey Those in Authority 1 All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. 2 So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged. 3 If you do what is right, you won’t need to be afraid of your rulers.) If you strongly believe you are supporting the gay lifestyle by making a cake, then you have to decide if that is how you want to earn your money. If you are an employee, rather than the owner, and you refuse, then you will possibly be terminated. I don’t think a cake maker is doomed to hell for making a cake. Make the cake as you would be making it for the Lord. If you can’t do that, then I suggest being financially independent so that you will have a lot less encounters with those who do not live their lives for the Lord.

    1. John Owens says:

      You obey the ordinance of man if it does not contradict the Laws of God, but there is also a question of doing things IN FAITH. If you do something, thinking you should not, it is a sin for you to do it, because you thought it was a sin.. If you think you SHOULD do something, but do not, it is a sin, no matter what the law of man says.

      Of course the cake maker would not be doomed. He still is not. The gay couple was not denied a marriage, OR a cake. They were just denied being able to command THIS baker to make it. Making a cake for the gay couple AS UNTO THE LORD would not be possible, if you had doubts about it.

      1. JOHN MAHER says:

        TO ALL you CAKE EATERS, SHUT UR PIE HOLES and GET a LIFE, PREFERABLY in PAGO PAGO WHERE U ALL can ENTERTAIN ONE and ANOTHER in DIVINITY of the MOUTH, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

        1. JOHN MAHER says:

          WHERE is INGA LA Pinga the CAKE is GONE !!! DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

  45. Robert E McCallum says:

    I would want a cake that was baked in the oven as is tradition, but had love in it as an extra sweetener and not substituting judgement, as it is a bittering agent.

  46. Tom says:

    To All…it has become increasingly, sadly clear that almost no one cares about the soul inside a body…virtually everyone wants to force the definition of a person to be based on their own beliefs, whether stroked by some religion or not, and not address the issue of how to integrate each person into our world…neither the church, nor any other organization can define human beings; to do so is arrogant and not loving…it appears that almost everyone wants to look away from people who do not fit into a narrow definition…to quote the bible, or any other book, as a guide to physicality and sexuality, is the height of being arrogant (and scared)…think about it…Tom

    1. Stefan says:

      We said, Tom! Well said!

      I tried to bring that part of the matter up earlier but no one cared. The law is all everyone likes to talk about. And then, of course politics.

      1. Tom says:

        Thank you, Stefan…people like laws and politics because both give them a chance to give vent…to me, this is the reason Trump was elected…he said a lot of things many people think, but will not say in public…unfortunately, most people miss the point of our existence by fighting and arguing, instead of trying to be loving and caring…Tom

        1. Caleb says:

          Yep. The sad thing is ppl are supposed the question, like critical thinking, yet follow a person who is a crybabie and knows nothing about what he’s doing.
          Want does that say about the sheeps?

        2. Stefan says:

          Laws give people the feeling to stand on safe ground. Read the laws, apply it and you are done. If the outcome is damaging to people one still can always say “I followed the law”. If you apply real Christian thinking you need to know the law, even comply with it BUT the responsibility to decide where it makes sense and where it doesn’t is on your shoulders. It is your conscience that is the measure not the compliance to the law. That’s why it is so difficult and so rewarding.

          As to the current president of the United States, rightly said and also wrong. He does not say what many people think, he speaks out the fears that the feel in their bellies. What he says makes them feel good because what he says travels directly from the ears to their guts. Quite nice, only that gut feeling is the opposite of understanding. By the way, listen to his voice and ask yourself where the sound comes from. From the belly. Fear, prejudice, and anger is coming from there.

          1. Tom says:

            Stefan…i generally agree with you…but with regard to laws, i believe that the more laws that exist, the more they evidence the breakdown of society…i also believe that if people would stop talking about Christian/Jewish/Islamic or all other “beliefs”, and just consider each other in light of love and caring, everyone would be better off…religions act to separate, not unite, people…Tom

          2. John Owens says:

            Tom, you are reasonable and knowledgeable, just going by what I have seen. The WHOLE problem here is that people whose whole lifestyles are against the tenets of the three great faiths hate those three faiths because they know their lives are contrary to them. Therefore, they are choosing one side here, and because they have chosen that side, they are demonizing the other side. I myself have not pronounced any judgment on the marital couple at the heart of this issue, as far as their marriage or proclivities, yet, I’m called judgmental, because since I didn’t automatically take their side, I have to be demonized, too. At least they are consistent in this, if in nothing else.

            My reasoning on this particular issue is that if a guy doesn’t want to bake you a cake, IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER WHY, he doesn’t have to bake it. The pseudos in here keep trying to make it into an issue of MY faith, lack thereof, or my adherence to a faith. It has nothing to do with that either. That is just obfuscation. The gay couple’s rights end where the straight baker’s begin. That is how I see it.

            All this talk about prejudice and judgment and fear and the whole can of worms is smokescreen. What they are saying is they are crying and whining, “We want to have our way!” I wonder if any of them know the gay couple’s names? Nah. They don’t care.
            They just want to be loved! Is that so wrong?!

          3. Guy Warinner says:

            Again John Owens you don’t understand anything. The Baker broke the law of the state, broke the word of the Constitution, and broke what the mythical JC was supposed to preach because of prejudice, hate and fear and nothing else. The Gay couple wanted a wedding cake not a birthday cake, not a happy new years cake but a wedding cake. They did not want him to participate in the wedding (Baking a cake is not part of a wedding it is a preparation for a celebration after the wedding because so far I have never seen a wedding cake between the bride and groom or in this case the groom and groom at the wedding)…

          4. John Owens says:

            You don’t know jack about Oregon law and probably less about the Constitution and if you think JC is a myth WHY THE HECK DO YOU KEEP BRINGING HIM UP? and why do you keep talking about prejudice and hate and then denying that YOU are the hater?

  47. JOHN MAHER says:

    I GUESS there is N O T ENOUGH SOAP OPERAS to KEEP the SHEEP in the MEADOW and the COWs in the CORN, BORED IDIOTs, DO SOME for UR FAMILIEs and UR COUNTRY and STOP COMMENTING to CAKE EATERs and CONDOMs, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

  48. Li says:

    Would your god really be okay with you using him as a scapegoat to excuse yourself from being exceptionally rude? Because that’s what’s happening here. Do you love your god so little that he serves only to excuse your inability to accept the world changing? What about love thy neighbor? What was it that Jesus died on the cross for?

    You can think what you want, you can do what you want, but you have to own up that it’s you. Using your faith as a scapegoat is the real sin here.

  49. Rev. Ned says:

    REAL Christians would bake the cakes.

    1. Stefan says:

      That was my point in an earlier post. They would bake the cake, congratulate the couple and join the wedding ceremony. And when invited, they would join the party and eat a piece of that cake.

  50. JOHN MAHER says:

    BLAH,BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, EAT CAKE ALREADY, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT,so is the US of A

  51. JOHN MAHER says:

    YER ALL FULL of CAKE SHYTE, GET a LIFE John [ KNOW N O T H I N G ] OWINS, BETTER YET GET a CAKE and SHOVE IT, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

  52. Reverend Ian says:

    In my work. I regularly deal with people in the arts. My last name being Shaw, the gay community feel free to call me Sandy or Dinah
    assigning me a “nick name” from their own sexual leaninings. I look forward to seeing some of these folk while not wanting to know
    what they do in the privacy of their homes. If dwelled on that I couldn’t deal them. They can be wonderful people and have great AND entertaining personalities both alone and with their partners. Last week I gave two men a invitation to come out to my farm for a day out of the city. I have known this couple for thirty years. I would never invite them to stay at my home. They are clean, well mannered, educated and good company. If they invited me to their wedding I’d go, no question.

    I have the same feelings for many lady couples I have met and still would not invite them to stay in my home.

    The people I have met of same sex attraction would never place such pressure or legal whinge on any business as is being discussed
    here.

    There is nothing wrong with any business just saying “I am sorry but we can’t help you”.

    1. John Owens says:

      That is very nice, Ian, but you’re going to be labeled a bigot and discriminatory, anyway, because you don’t agree with Hominis Cavus and Hominis Minimus. You seem like a really nice person.

  53. Rev Marcus Ferrell says:

    Christians need to turn off their bigotry and xenophobia and hear GOD’S WILL on things ( according to the Bible anyway).

    ” Pro. 13: 22 A good [man] leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner [is] laid up for the just.”

    Instead of hating someone / a group of people because they’re involved in something that YOU disagree with because God has
    let it be known he’s against it, you SHOULD be working on avenues of COMMERCE to relieve these sinners of that wealth as
    promised in the above scripture. If it’s GOD’S will that you tap that wealth and make it yours, then it would behoove you as an
    OBEDIENT servant of God to smile as these people enter your place of business and take as much of that wealth as is legally
    possible while they’re there.

    The Bible was written in such way that even the Village Idiot can grasp it. Is the Village Idiot smarter than you??

    1. Stefan says:

      That is quite a daring application of Pro13:22. But I somehow like the thought.

      1. JOHN MAHER says:

        REV. FERRELL, DO U N O T READ the COMMENTs HERE IN ??? YOU HAVE the NERVE to ASK if ANYONE is SMARTER than the VILLAGE IDIOT ??? READ ON REV., READ ON, ESPECIALLY the COMMENTs of the MAYOR of the VILLAGE JOHN [ monica Blewinsky ] OWINS, tRUMPs GOILFRIEND !!!
        DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

    2. John Owens says:

      The village idiot knows men’s anatomy is not made to be paired with other men’s, since you are talking, Village Idiot. And the village idiot knows the Bible does NOT say men should be with men and other men should approve. You should not make this about the Bible, because the Bible says stuff you don’t want to know or hear or practice. This is a legal question, and we all know the Bible doesn’t enter into it.

      1. JOHN MAHER says:

        WELL JOHN OWINS U FINALLY ADMIT UR TRUE IDENTITY, the VILLAGE IDIOT, will WONDERS NEVER CEASE, thank U OWINS for the TRUTH……..

        1. John Owens says:

          Be quiet and eat your boogers, Maher.

          1. JOHN MAHER says:

            OWINS only VILLAGE IDIOTs EAT BOOGERs, U BLOODY IDIOT !!! DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A, ….CONSOLATION JOHN OWINS GOD BLESSES BLOODY IDIOTs

  54. Eddie Starr says:

    That depends, on if the same that REQUIRES Christian bakers also REQUIRES Muslim bakers to do the same. Here, we have an undercover blogger go to Muslim bakers, who also refuse to bake the cake for the gay wedding. Where is the outcry and coming out against Muslims, with the same vehemence displayed to the Christian bakers?

    http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/undercover-video-would-muslim-bakers-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake

    The person did NOT try to call for the execution, which in Muslim countries like Iran, the people would be executed, publicly, just for being homosexual. Let him be, and they just go to other business. That simple.

    1. John Owens says:

      Exactly, Eddie. If a Muslim refuses, the cry-babies understand, but not if a Christian does it. Why the double-standard? Muslims don’t love homosexuality any more than Christians do, but Christians are a lot more tolerant than Muslims, on average. Do you suppose it’s because the snowflakes think the Christians will give in, but the Moslems won’t, anyway?

      1. Guy Warinner says:

        I don’t care who you are or who you worship if you break the law you should not get rewards you should get punished…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      2. JOHN MAHER says:

        JOHN OWINS the way you WHINE ON and LOOK UP to tRUMP I BELIEVE you WERE MOLESTED by UR DADDY @ a VERY EARLY AGE and for A VERY LONG TIME, POOR SOUL, DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

  55. Reverend Jedi Sky says:

    Some people seem to really not grasp that any form of discrimination is wrong and to be rooted out. The Civil Rights movement should not be left as a relic of our past but something to be held up as an iconic triumph.

    As for the science talk. Yes it was not all that long ago that we finally decoded the human genome. Yes there has been a growing recognition that just because one may possess an outward anatomy of one gender, it can be at odds with ones internal programming so to speak. We are incredibly complex organic machines.

    Sometimes the case does not always suit the core. Think of stories like the gentle giant for example.

    As for bible talk. One must recall the old testament is based upon pre christian era beliefs. And the modern ultra popular King James version of the bible is corrupted selectively edited and largely conflicts with actual ancient christian writings.

    All one has to do is look at the stories of jesus himself to understand what being an actual christian is. It is to always be forgiving, always be understanding and generous. Always be loving and compassionate. To die rather then fight. Even in defense of ones own life. Yes christian is pacifistic at its core. Anyone who buys into the christian soldier tripe that was shoveled time and again to start crusades is not a christian and Jesus would condemn every one of them as he did that roman soldier that turned away the blind beggar from the temple. Which keep in mind due to roman documents found mentioning an assault upon a roman solider guarding a temple by a man named Jesus is one of the few bits of non christian text suggesting Jesus was real.

    Jesus alone had that right to smite that guard for he possessed the true divine right. This was the same right later usurped time and again by kings who claimed to be empowered by god. Yet not one ever was or will have that right to judge. Judge not lest ye be judged is not a complex concept. Its as simple as it gets. Let ye without sin cast the first stone. Again very simple. No one else is Jesus no one else has the right to harm another. The moment you bring harm even in defense of yourself you fall to the Dark Side. When Luke cast his saber away and refused to kill Vader and refused to fight back against the emperor he finally understood that inherent cosmic truth.

    Now if you subscribe to other views, you may also accept that those born under the zodiac combination of the Libra, and the monkey also have the right to judge. But only after they have chosen to walk the path of the enlightened and chosen to understand others in all walks of life.

    I just know this. Public businesses must serve all members of the public in a law abiding manner. If so called christian zealots who are not really christian in anything but lip service want to claim their faith as a reason to defy the law, let them be cast to the lions. If they as true christian followers in the ancient times kneel before the lions rather then fight, then they prove their faith and may be with their god. If they scream and fight then when rent by the tooth and nail they shall find themselves eternally damned for being false in their faith.

    Yes everyone who goes praise god and pass the ammunition is already damned. They are not soldiers of their god but of that being they claim to hate called Lucifer. Those who practice any form of hate or have any fear are damned. Jesus did not tolerate bigotry, he smote it and cursed it as was his divine right alone. Mere mortals have not that right to persecute, nor cause fear in their fellow man.

    1. John Owens says:

      Jedi, you just damned a whole lotta people while you were talking about not being judgmental and God alone has that authority. You passing judgment is no more or less good or evil than someone else doing it, unless you have some divine revelation that you are with-holding from the rest of us. Oh, and I really thought the Star Wars stuff was deep.

    2. Caleb says:

      Very well said, Rev Jedi Sky. Truth!

    3. Guy Warinner says:

      Jedi Sky: When you try to explain to a professional bigot the problem with bigotry you are talking to a blank wall with no ability to understand discrimination except in a bigoted way…

      1. John Owens says:

        Only a bigot would call it bigotry to point out bigotry, you BIGOT.

        1. Guy Warinner says:

          Now you have surpassed Dictator Donald T Rump in making an utterly stupid statement that can only make sense to mentally unstable and morally corrupt…

          1. John Owens says:

            You are such a snot-nosed child, and EXTREMELY dense. Why don’t you just once try to judge YOURSELF?

          2. JOHN MAHER says:

            BOOGER OWINS, the VILLAGE IDIOT EVERYONE is ON to U and YOUR SUGAR DADDY tRUMP don’t RANT and RAVE MONICA just CHANGE YOUR DRESS and BRUSH UR TEETH,DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

  56. John Owens says:

    I hate to ask, but this one guy is not contributing anything at ALL. He’s just out of place here. He might be more at home in, say, a psych ward somewhere. I have seen autism and tourettes, and he seems to have them both. His verbal skills are so severely limited, I do not think he is mentally competent to be considered an adult. Please consider reprimanding him.

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      ONLY a BIGOT would KNOW that OWINS U BLOODY IDIOT, I shall refer to YOU in the FUTURE as BOOGER OWINS, the SHOE FITs EH’ BOOGER, ……..DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP,GOD is GREAT so is the US of A, …… the ONLY SERVICE you EVER DID was KEEPING the COUNTRY CLEAN by EATING UR BOOGERS, BOOGER !!!

Leave a Comment