Lesbian couple holding rainbow flags
Supporters of gay rights were ecstatic at the news, calling the decision a victory in the ongoing battle against LGBT discrimination in the U.S.

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to traditional faith groups Monday when it declined to hear oral arguments on a case involving a Christian-owned B&B. The Aloha Bed & Breakfast has been tied up in court since 2011 when a lesbian couple sued the business for refusing to rent them a room. Owner Phyllis Young insisted that it was her right to deny anyone service on religious grounds.

But the courts saw it differently, consistently ruling in favor of the couple. Young and her attorneys appealed the decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, by refusing to hear the case, the Court essentially affirmed the lower courts’ decision that it is unconstitutional for hotel operators to discriminate against same-sex guests.

A Win for Justice

Supporters of gay rights were ecstatic at the news, calling the decision a victory in the ongoing battle against LGBT discrimination in the U.S. Peter Renn, an attorney for the couple, put it this way: “You can’t roll up the welcome mat when you see a lesbian or gay couple, just as you can’t refuse to do business with Jewish customers, African-American customers, or disabled customers.”

Interestingly, this development comes less than a year after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. That decision proved a pleasant surprise to religious freedom groups who frequently complain that their rights are being eroded.

Faith Groups Remain Defiant

Phyllis Young and her legal team maintain that she did nothing wrong in turning away the lesbian couple. In fact, they insist it was the government that overstepped its bounds by policing the religious beliefs of a private business owner. “The Constitution protects Phyllis’ right not to promote behavior her faith teaches is immoral or to associate with people who are unwilling to respect her deeply held religious beliefs,” the attorneys wrote.

Despite this defiance, their legal saga is effectively over at this point; there is nowhere else for the case to go now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear it.

That said – the issue of LGBT discrimination is far from settled and it would surprise no one to see another case come down the pipeline at some point in the near future.

What do you think? Do private business owners have a right to refuse service for reasons of faith, or are they using religion as a shield to justify bigotry?

187 comments

  1. Katelynne Victoria Shouse says:

    If you serve the public you serve the entire public otherwise go join a commune!

    1. Dan Anderson says:

      Katelynne – Stated very well. Thank you!

    2. Patty Wileman says:

      First I’m going to say they did this just to be a bully . They know Christians faith and beliefs so they bully them . If what you say goes for everything why do people that have a red Maga hat because they like trump can’t be served in bars another restaurant . Because they took a choice but yet you can’t say anything about a gay person you cannot say anything about a Muslim . And a Christian has no right now in what they believe the Bible says . Technically you were talking out of both sides your mouth because you okayed this but you don’t say anything about someone with a red hat on. There is always someone will serve you and be delighted and those are the people that you should do business with not for somebody to do something they don’t want because they live in these homes . Yes I have gay friends and no I won’t marry them . And they wouldn’t dare ask me because they respect what I believe also

      1. Sober Mind says:

        You do understand that the couple weren’t asking the B&B owner to marry them, right?

        Expecting a business to do business with you regardless of your race/gender/religion/sexual orientation isn’t bullying. The opposite is true: refusing to do business IS bullying.

        1. Scott Handy says:

          You are way off course here. What they are saying is it is ok to refuse services to trump supporters but not ok to refuse services to gay couples! I have a problem with where this Country is heading. I am sorry but as a former business owner I feel that I as the owner should have the right to refuse services to anyone for any reason after all it is my business and my money!

          1. Carl Elfstrom says:

            If you honestly feel that way why did you say you’re sorry ?

      2. Sam says:

        The MAGA hat represents hate and racism and make many people uncomfortable However that is another debate. I feel that any bussness that disciminates based on their own beliefs should not be open to the public.
        I also believe that any reliogion that does not except LGBTQ2 people should be taxed. Jesus did not preach hate.

        1. Lionheart says:

          “Jesus did not preach hate”

          Well, if Jesus really existed, I’m trying to understand what sort of frame of mind he really was in when he made this comment about slaves.

          KJV Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

          KJV Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

          It seems that Jesus is advocating killing infidels. Where have I heard that before?

          1. Bills Spirit says:

            Luke 12:47 – Unless you can cite an earlier scripture where Jesus condemns Christian innkeepers for renting rooms to gay people, this passage would not be related to the topic of discussion.

            Luke 19:11-27 Is a parable, not a commandment. As part of the parable, Luke 19:27 refers to the time when the crucified king will return; and not to this current time of humanity.

          2. Lionheart says:

            Well, Mr Bills Spirit, I was merely addressing a comment from Sam that said, Jesus did not preach hate. Your Jesus guy sounds pretty aggressive to me and not very loving at all.

            When your wonderful and omnipotent crucified king has returned and had those brought before him to have them killed because they don’t want him to rule over them, it will be one very sick and bloody scene. Personally, I think he’s one very sick dude. Where’s his forgiveness he is supposed to have preached?

            Thankfully, I am so glad that all these silly stories are the imaginings of a few sick authors in your fictional book about a mythical god. Please don’t teach these R rated sick stories to children, it could damage them for life……oh, but wait!

          3. Daniel Adams says:

            this was not a comment about slaves it was a parable.context was concerning the servant who mistreats his servants and is given to drunkenness when
            his master is away

          4. Daniel Adams says:

            one is hard-pressed finding a commandment from Jesus since he speaks in present tense,if not narrating a story himself. remember this:Golden Rule is always in effect.I ask this: Why force a person to gain profit from people that she would otherwise not. and why choose to pay a person who would rather not receive their money?

          5. Lionheart says:

            Ohhhh okay then. So it’s it’s okay then to beat your servents. I’ve got it now……I think.

            Weird though isn’t it, even in parable form, but if he approves it, then it must be good….right?

            Personally, I would have thought there would be a more loving comment in parable form for that situation from a supposed deity in embryo, but hey, what do I know, I’m just a mere mortal. But then again, if Jesus’s dad ordered a man to be stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath what can we expect?

            Gods can be really weird at times can’t they!

          6. John Owens says:

            He did not approve it. When you disobey, bad things happen to you, as when a child does not listen to their parents. They get hurt, they get into trouble outside the home. They become ill. They break bones. Obedience brings a certain amount of protection. Disobedience negates that.

          7. Don says:

            “He did not approve it.”
            Matthew 5:18 Jesus approved of all the OT commandments.

            “I believe in the Sabbath”
            You do know that the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday, right?
            Because God knows!

          8. John Owens says:

            Why, yes, I DO know the Sabbath is the 7th day, Don, as the U.S. government does, and most of the countries with a heavy Latin or Greek influence on their languages. I have observed the Sabbath, annual Holy Days, and clean and unclean meats since sometime in 1978. I don’t remember the month.

            I thank you for pointing it out, though.

          9. Lilibeth says:

            Do you know what a parable is!?

        2. Ed says:

          The Old Testament says it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man. |Same thing goes for women.

          1. flugo says:

            Yes, Ed, and Jesus in the New Testament defines marriage as a union of a man and woman

          2. Lionheart says:

            Yes, I’ve been telling my dogs the same thing. I don’t want any puppies until they are spiritually joined in Holy matrimony, and, I’ve told them that there is to be deffinitely no sniffing of dogs butts of the same sex.

            I know many will read this as just being utterly sarcastic, or just plain stupid, but, that’s exactly how many of us also think about peoples religious statements on this blog, that are deeply indoctrinated into religion.

          3. Steph says:

            Jesus also states that remarriage after divorce is adultery.

          4. Lionheart says:

            Yes, and so is:
            Eating pork and shellfish.

            Ezekiel 18:6 Touching a woman who is menstruating because she is impure.

            There are many more, so
            do all Christians abide by these edicts?

          5. Ralph J Miller says:

            Lionheart.: So what your saying,is that because everyone else commit sins it’s ok to sleep with the same sex? That like saying if people eat pork,I’ll go rob a bank.

          6. Lionheart says:

            No Ralph, what I’m saying is that for some reason mankind is choosing which sin should be followed. Either abide by all of them, or none of them.

            I don’t believe in sins anyway, I’m just trying to understand the dichotomy of these silly edicts from supposed gods.

          7. John Owens says:

            I believe in those commandments, Lionheart.

          8. Lionheart says:

            That’s okay John. Many people do believe in them, that’s what comes if having a religious belief system. Others of other religions have their own beliefs, all stating their god, or religion, is the real one. I’m okay with it as long they don’t try to affect my life in any way. They can speak to a wall, floor, or ceiling on my behalf as much as they want.

            I’m just as atheistic about their god(s) as you are. It’s just that you believe in one more god than I do, and that’s okay.

            ✌🏻Peace!

            🦁❤️

          9. John Owens says:

            Yes. We read each other’s comments. We have a good idea where the other stands. Politically, socially, you and I are not so far apart. Only in theology we are far apart. I was just stating, I believe in all the commandments, except for the things to do with sacrifices and the priesthood, because the genealogies of the priests were basically lost twice, and somewhat uncertain today, and because Paul taught that the sacrifice had been paid, as far as that goes. The Almighty, in the Tanakh (the unlearned call this the OT), said in one place that He preferred obedience to sacrifice, and in another He preferred to have mercy rather than sacrifice.

            Still, I believe in the Sabbath, the Holy Days, eating of certain things and abstaining from others, regular moderate consumption of wine or beer, occasional small amounts of liquor. I don’t wear a phylactery or yarmulka or wear my hair funny, and I don’t recite canned prayers or proverbs. I also don’t believe in fornication (not that I don’t think about it– if I cracked my head little naked adult women would fly everywhere–still working on that one). I don’t think it is my responsibility to convert anyone. It cannot be, because it is not within my power to do so. I still have to tell them things when the opportunity arises. What they do with it is up to them. I wish them no ill.

        3. R.L. Knight says:

          Wasn’t Luke an Apostle of Paul Along with Mark and Timothy and not Jesus?

          1. Lionheart says:

            As far as I’m aware, Mark, Timothy, and Luke were not apostles of Jesus.

        4. John Owens says:

          The MAGA hat does not represent hate and racism. If they make people feel uncomfortable, that is because the MISINFORMATION put out by the left has made them think that.

          1. Lionheart says:

            I have to agree with you John. If wearing a baseball style cap upsets anyone, the problem is not with the wearer of the hat.

          2. Don says:

            A true statement at last! Yes, it is true that, in and of itself, the MAGA hat does not represent hate nor racism.

            However, it is also a substantiated that many hateful bigots are known to wear the hat. The inference didn’t come from the “left”, it came from the spineless hat wearing racists.

          3. John Owens says:

            No, Don. Wrong. It is substantiated that many hateful bigots CLAIM that hateful bigots wear the cap. It is substantiated that a gay liberal hired two Nigerians to PRETEND to be wearing the caps and attack him. It is substantiated that Black Hebrews and a valor thief approached a 16 year old and CNN tried to make it look as though the boy did something bad by being there. Substantiated over and over that the people in the hats are the VICTIMS of bigotry and hate, and not the perpetrators.

          4. Don says:

            There is concrete evidence that all MAGA hat wearers are ignorant racist pieces of trash.

            Concrete evidence.

          5. Lionheart says:

            Errrrr…am I missing something? it’s a hat!

          6. Don says:

            Yes, Lionheart, you are indeed missing something.

            I am claiming to have Concrete Evidence that only racists wear the MAGA hat.
            Just like John Owens claimed to have Concrete Evidence for intelligent design back on February 18.

            If he doesn’t have to show his evidence, why should I have to show mine?

          7. John Owens says:

            Don, you leftists keep saying that without one iota of proof. Just saying it does not make it true, just like saying that Trump said white supremists were fine people. He never said that, and if you had any truth in your platform, you wouldn’t have to lie.

          8. Don says:

            “you leftists keep saying that without one iota of proof. Just saying it does not make it true”

            “if you had any truth in your platform, you wouldn’t have to lie.”

            If irony were painful, poor John would be screaming in agony.
            Tell me, why do MY claims require evidence but yours do not?

          9. John Owens says:

            BECAUSE, DONNY, I GIVE you evidence, and you just pretend I didn’t, OR if I give you multiple sources, you reject one and ignore the rest. That is your silly game– not mine.

          10. Don says:

            Still waiting for that mysterious invisible evidence.
            Find it yet?

          11. John Owens says:

            Not invisible. All around you. You’re just being petty.

          12. Don says:

            And we’re back to “the evidence is all around you”.
            That’s the line Creationists use when they can no longer deny the fact that they have no evidence for their claims.
            Thanks for the unintended admission finally.

        5. RENIE says:

          IF THAT IS YOUR STANCE REGARDING THE MAGA HAT ECT… THEN I HAVE TO SAY THAT DURING THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN S THE LOGO AND HIS MERCH WAS 100 ERCENT HATE SPEECH TO ME ND INSULTED ME AT EVERY LEVEL. BUT I DID NOT SEE HORDES OF REPUBLICANS DESTROYING CITIES HARMING PEOPLE BLOCKING HIGHWAYS . THIS BEHAVIOR FROM THE LEFT IT TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL AND SHAMEFUL.

      3. Timothy Golding says:

        Amen.They did it on purpose

    3. arawngraalrd says:

      Would the commune be allowed religious requirements?

      1. Carl Elfstrom says:

        Is it like a Greek monastery, where it’s said the monks practice lambda ?

        1. John Owens says:

          Most didn’t get that, Carl.

    4. Pastor Dave says:

      Guess I’m breaking the law when choosing who to rent my AirB&B to or baking a wedding cake! Bad boy Pastor Dave!

  2. Don says:

    “Phyllis Young and her legal team maintain that she did nothing wrong in turning away the lesbian couple.”

    And this is the problem right here…not only is she an unrepentant homophobic bigot, but by hiding her ignorant cowardice behind her religion, she has what she feels is justification for her hateful, ignorant beliefs.

    Just another example of why religion is cancer.

    1. Bobby French says:

      Don, first off I’ll pray for you for your lack of Faith and second, why is it that the liberal courts (and you) feel that the rights of gay couples supercede the rights of people of Faith/straight? The liberal courts and groups like the ACLU work so hard to take away the rights of one group of people because they feel the rights of others are greater. The simple solution in cases such as this is for the gay couples to look elsewhere for service. However, the gay community would rather fight against the rights of others than to do what is right. It is time for everyone’s rights be looked at as equal.
      God Bless

      1. Don says:

        Bobby, kindly take your cowardly, thinly veiled threats of damnation, and shove them up your backside.
        Such filth has no place on this page. Shame on you.

        1. arawngraalrd says:

          Such threats of Damnation are beyond the authority of the Supreme Court.

        2. Connie says:

          I have to give you props for not thinly veiling your thoughts Don!

        3. Rev Buzz says:

          Don,

          Please read your own admonition to Bobby. How is your statement not also shameful. Let’s all try to be more civil with each other, even though we may disagree with the content of someone else’s post.

          1. Don says:

            Buzz,

            My comment is not shameful, as it is a RESPONSE to a nasty, filthy, shameful comment. Try this analogy – when a person punches you in the face without any provocation, it is assault. When you punch the person BACK, it is NOT assault, but defense. It is a RESPONSE to the assault.

            All clear now?

          2. John Owens says:

            Mmm-hmm.

      2. Bob says:

        The issue is whether a business owner’s individual right (the right to discriminate against some group of people the individual disrespects) supersedes society’s interest in promoting tolerance and equality. I am on the side of equality. We believe that all men (and women) were created equal. Thus, as a society, we should not let a business operating in the public square openly discriminate against blacks, jews, women, gays, muslims, etc. If you care to operate a business in our society, you must follow certain tenets that our society holds dear – equality is one of those. A Christian business owner is not being discriminated against. The same rules apply to them as apply to every other business owner. Also, although I understand the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. I have not heard of a religion that believes one should not serve such sinners (we serve all other sinners)

        1. Robert Tucker says:

          “The issue is whether a business owner’s individual right (the right to discriminate against some group of people the individual disrespects) supersedes society’s interest in promoting tolerance and equality.”

          Well, you should run right out and sue your local kosher deli, or halal market. They will not serve pork due to religious beliefs. Kosher foods are those that conform to the Jewish dietary regulations of kashrut, primarily derived from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That is a violation in your view is it not? Those darn deli owners disrespecting my right to a pulled pork sandwich! But you will not go out and sue them, or drag their reputation through the mud, possibly bankrupting the shop owner because society says there is no problem here. You would be laughed out of court for such a contemptible act.

          Put the shoe on the other foot. What if a demonstrably Christian couple walked into the gay owned B&B? What would happen then? Or, how many “Pro Life” cakes do you think a LGBTQ+ owner of a bakery would make? Do we see lawsuits in this type? Why don’t we?

          Try an experiment. Call up several of your local LGBTQ+ bakeries, ask them if they will make a cake with this verse. Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

          Let me know what you find out.

          1. bob says:

            Robert, there is a difference between deciding what products you want to sell and restricting who you will sell those products to. A Kosher deli can decide not to sell pork just as a pizza parlor can decide not to sell hamburgers. However, once a business decides what products or services to sell or provide, they should not be allowed to deny those products and services to people they find disagreeable or immoral, etc. Putting the shoe on the other foot does not make it right. It is not right for a business (any business, owned by anyone) to deny customers their products or services because of political or religious or moral beliefs.

        2. Carl Elfstrom says:

          Don’t forget about the gay Christian churches that don’t think homosexuality is a sin. It’s not a belief shared by all Christians. As a matter of fact, only Christians of the same denomination have close to the same beliefs. Different people interpret the Bible in different ways. I don’t believe in the Bible, despite having read and studied it quite thoroughly, and have’nt claimed to be a Christian in many years, but do believe Jesus, Buddha, and possibly some others became one with God, The All, the ultimate unknowable diety,
          or whatever you want to call it. It’s all the same thing, as far as I can tell. Despite the fact that I’m a natural Witch and long – time initiated Wiccan whose deities are Pagan gods and goddesses of the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian pantheons, I believe in all the gods and goddesses of every religion. And I don’t minister in accordance with my beliefs, but in accordance with the beliefs of those I’m ministering to, which makes my ministry truly interfaith. Blessed be !

      3. Len Shelton says:

        Bobby……….did you just refer to the US Supreme Court as liberal? Where have you been? No court that I know of is working to take away the rights of one group at the expense of another. Hopefully the courts are working to treat all groups fairly. If one is in the business of serving the public, that public includes LGBT folks as well. I am a church attending Christian. If you are in church more than I am its because you are sleeping there. Now what Jesus is this you worship? Somewhere along the line you have totally miss the message in the teachings of Jesus Christ. How would you feel if you came to visit my church and were turned away at the door because you are bald, have brown eyes instead of blue, or were wearing shorts. Now if you came to visit and were naked, you would be offered a robe. If you refused to put it on, yes, you would be turned away. Reread the gospels again and I believe you will see a Jesus who is saying, “All people are welcome, but not all behaviors are welcome.”

      4. John Owens says:

        Yep. It definitely seems that Bobby is much more cordial than his venomous detractor who claims to be acting in self-defense.

        1. Don says:

          Threats of eternal damnation are cordial now?
          This from the same guy who cried over being called cowardly?
          The irony is delicious!

          1. John Owens says:

            The irony is that you seem unable to reciprocate restraint and good manners.

          2. Don says:

            Ha! How would YOU know anything about that?

          3. John Owens says:

            By a trick you never learned, apparently– observation.

          4. Don says:

            Ha! While irony can be funny, unintentional irony is hilarious!
            A person who doesn’t know what evidence is, trying to school someone on observation.
            Classic.

          5. John Owens says:

            Yes, you are the one who refuses to acknowledge evidence. Ironic indeed.

            Imagine if a prosecutor showed a hammer used in a murder to the jury, and the defense attorney demanded documented proof that it was, indeed, a hammer.

            That is how demented your behavior is.

          6. Don says:

            Yes John! At last you’re getting it! A hammer would be EVIDENCE!
            Actually producing the hammer for the jury would be documented proof!
            Now, present the empirical evidence for intelligent design you claimed to have.

          7. John Owens says:

            If you see a vehicle or implement with gears, an axle, wheels, and bearings and races for those, you attribute those to intelligent design. Then you deny intelligent design in chemical compounds, molecular geometry, the atom, the way that the known laws of the universe are explainable in mathematical formulae, and again, the magnificently complex coding of DNA. Hell, Bill Gates sees it there. You say that is all an accident, or rather, a series of millions of accidents.

            Accident could not have designed nor built the simple tools of gears, axles, and bearings, much less the atomic structure of the elements or the DNA molecule. Yes, it IS all around you. One should not have to be a Creationist to see what is there. Only the most obtuse ignoramus would deny that there IS intelligence behind the design of most things when you look at them at the molecular level and beyond.

        2. Don says:

          Thanks, I guess, for showcasing your hypocrisy for all to see.
          By the way, did you ever find your evidence for intelligent design?
          The last thread got closed before you posted any.

          1. John Owens says:

            I posted plenty, even though only a person in severe denial would need any. You just ignored or rejected it all, not because you think are correct, but because you like to argue and sling insults. I suppose that is why you are trying to start back up on this page.

          2. Don says:

            You posted plenty of empirical evidence for intelligent design?
            And it ALL got deleted before anyone saw it?
            Amazing – but it should be child’s play to simply post it again, right?
            Unless, of course, you’re lying again.

            Your reply will tell us for certain, one way or the other.

        3. Don says:

          The silence is deafening.
          But not unexpected.

          1. John Owens says:

            I am going to show you how an adult man walking down the sidewalk ignores the yapping chihuahua in the fenced yard he passes. Keep yapping. I no longer care.

          2. Don says:

            “venomous detractor”

            Cry more about insults, Snowflake.
            Hypocrites are silly.

    2. sophos patronus says:

      Interesting how you and your comstituants are bitter and nasty on your rebuttles. This speaks of whose opinion you voice. Any private establishment has the right to deny service to anyone.

      1. Bills Spirit says:

        Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

        Protected classes in the USA include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps.

        1. Rev Buzz says:

          Response to Don: No, it is not clear now. Self defense is different from lowering yourself to vulgar language in a verbal dispute. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Please take the high road and use civil discourse to make your point. Remember the forum we are in and do that which is right.

          1. Don says:

            Hey there Buzz – to respond to my comment, click “Post Reply” under my name.
            Don’t randomly reply to me on another person’s comment, as that makes it look like you are just trying to be an insulting troll (and we already have one on the page, and that’s more than enough).

            Also, I did not use any vulgar language.

            Thanks.

          2. Rev Buzz says:

            Response to Don’s March, 25th, 3:02 pm post:

            Don, On my screen there was no POST REPLY button showing under the earlier comment you posted, nor was there one showing on your latest post to me, so I made a post where I could. I have noticed that many comments are not posted in a timely manner or in sequential order. I meant no disrespect or any intent to troll. I agree that you did not use vulgar language where I admonished you for doing so. My intent was to say that the tone and tenor of your comment (telling someone where to shove it) was vulgar and not in keeping with what should be observed in this forum. I apologize for any unintended malice you may have perceived.

  3. Ralph J Miller says:

    There were other hotels or B&B’s that would have accepted them

    1. Bob says:

      And there were drinking fountains for blacks in the south in the 50’s. What’s the big deal?

      1. Ralph J Miller says:

        Ok here we go with this ignorant shit again!
        Discrimination back in the days was based on race…..NOT SEXUAL PREFERENCE. How did the hotel owner know they were lesbians…? All that could have been avoided.

        1. Bob says:

          And I do not see anything less abhorrent in discriminating based upon sexual preference than discriminating based upon race. Apparently, you see one as a lesser evil. I do not see how expecting all people to be treated equally is ignorant shit – it is one of the founding principles of our country.

          1. Ralph J Miller says:

            So you don’t discriminate based on sexual preference?

        2. bob says:

          Ralph,
          The concept of treating all people equally is one of the most fundamental founding principles of our country. I’ve never heard it referred to as ignorant shit. Apparently you see discriminating based upon sexual preference a lesser evil than discriminating based upon race – I do not. I’d be interested in your rationale.

          1. Ralph J Miller says:

            Bob; Your trying to force people to accept your lifestyle choices.This is what causes problems with the lgbt community.Ya’ll want everyone to accept you,But y’all can’t accept yourself.I was raised being told that homosexuality is a sin.thats my belief.I have friends that are gay.I don’t force my beliefs on them and they don’t force their lifestyle choices on me.Ime.I don’t give a damn who you married too or who your screwing.Why would you even wanna tell a straight person your lifestyle choice……….What do you want..? A hug and some unicorn cookies…NOT HAPPENING.

  4. Lionheart says:

    Two people in love! Wonderful isn’t it!

    1. flugo says:

      Yeah, two people in ‘lust’! Wonderful isn’t it?

      1. Don says:

        Good old Phlegmo, always ready with a bigoted troll comment.
        Thanks for being so predictable, hateful little person.

        1. flugo says:

          ‘done’: Yeah, two same-gendered people behaving in an unnatural, immoral, twisted manner is wonderful, isn’t it? Making mockery of God’s original design and intended purpose is never .
          ‘wonderful’!

          The lifestyle and platform of the LGBTQxyz-ers lead in a downward spiral to destruction, I’m sorry to say.

          Forgiveness from a loving, righteous God through Jesus is the only answer; the only remedy.

          1. Bob Anderson says:

            Well, aren’t you just a nasty little piece of work. What’s life like in that bigoted little shell of self-righteousness? As dark as your heart?

          2. Bills Spirit says:

            Making mockery of God’s original design and intended purpose?

            How do you know that God did not make them this way? Also, since God made everything, why do same-sex relationships appear in the animal kingdom? Why did He make them that way?

          3. Woke says:

            @Bills Spirit: there is no evidence there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Male on male dominance and aggression? Sure. Feelings of love and attraction, not only can we not know, but I seriously doubt it.

          4. Don says:

            “there is no evidence there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom.”

            Woke, please wake up, then do a search for the New Mexico Whiptail lizard. The entire species is FEMALE.

            Now, you were saying?

          5. Bills Spirit says:

            Responding to Woke – re: “there is no evidence there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom.”

            Actually, there are MANY studies. And every animal species studied had some same-sex relationships among their species. A list of some of these is provided below.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Some_selected_species_and_groups

          6. Don says:

            “Forgiveness from a loving, righteous God through Jesus is the only answer; the only remedy”

            As you are already aware, flugo, ignorant hateful threats of damnation have no place on this page. Grow up and stop being such a cowardly spewer of hate.

      2. Lionheart says:

        Well, Mr Flugo. You did make me go back and read the article again, and I still didn’t see anything about lust. I did see it was an article about adults who love one another.

        The article pails in significance to some of those writings in that religious book where incest was written about. I’m just wondering if incest is in some way connected to lust. What do you think? Just asking!

  5. Kirk says:

    Why do people only sue Christian businesses? The article doesn’t mention whether this lesbian couple specifically targeted this B&B like the transgenders did with the baker. Really no details in the article.

    1. Tom says:

      A) Probably because muslims don’t typically own B&Bs, but if they did… I’m sure it would be the bomb…

      B) Of all the gas stations and 7/11s they run, I’ve never seen a muslim refuse a Slurpee to anyone.

    2. Bob Anderson says:

      Because in this country, the majority of haters happens to be so-called ‘christians’.

      1. pcfield says:

        You have a point there Bob, so-called Christians have chased many from the teachings of Christ and His father. One scripture that I enjoy and practice is : “Love the sinner, Hate the sin.” Not very fire and brimstone is it?

      2. Tom says:

        And black israelites, and muslims, and quakers, etc.

  6. Tom B says:

    As in the Heart of Atlanta Motel case; if you hold yourself out to do business with the public, you must do business with the entire public; not selected sections…Peace…Tom B

  7. Rev. Rene says:

    I hate to have an alternative view: If it is OK for the baker to refuse because the courts decided a) there were alternatives, and b) every business has the right of refusal of service; then logically it would follow this should serve as a reference for future rulings, i.e. precedent. But then we are in a different area, different court, and illogically there we have a contrary ruling.
    I agree if you run a public business you should serve all comers when possible, yet still have the feeling these cases are not about a cake or a room but about creating a precedent! And even lower courts should not accept these “trial balloon” type cases!

    1. Parish says:

      As I recall, the bakery case hinges on the “artistic” expression of the baker. The argument was something like, since this was a unique item, the baker could be associated with the purpose of the cake. (Btw, I disagree with the argument.) Renting a room in a B&B is open accommodation. This is no different than denying services due to race, ethnic origins or religion. It is a violation of the “Equal Protection” clause of the 14th Amendment. The 1st Amendment is slowing being reinterpreted to downplay the “establishment” part to strengthen the “free exercise” part. The two must stay in balance. In short, the his was a good ruling/non-ruling.

    2. Rev. Dr. Marion Ceruti says:

      The best explanation of how this works was given by Justice Elena Kagen, who indicated that a business can choose the products and/or services that it offers, but it cannot choose its customers. She wrote this in an opinion for a related SCOTUS case. Therefore, if you apply this principle, you logically must conclude that if an motel owner offers the service of a motel room, the owner must rent to same-sex couples. The same principle applies to bakers. If a baker offers products such as plain cakes, “Happy Birthday” cakes, “Happy Anniversary” cakes, but not “Doug and James Wedding” cakes, the baker certainly should not be forced to make and sell a “Doug and James Wedding” cake to anyone – either a straight person or LGBTQ. This is not discriminating against LGBTQ, it is the exercising of the right of a business to choose its products and/or services. If a gay couple came in and ordered a plain cake or a “Happy Anniversary” cake, the baker would have be obligated to sell the couple the cake. These are the facts as interpreted by SCOTUS.

      Now, here is my opinion. I think that SCOTUS got most of it right. However, there has to be some limit on how much the government can force a private business owner to serve a customer. Should a bartender be forced to sell a drunk person more alcohol? If a person is very dirty, covered with mud, should a hotel owner be forced to rent a room to that person? How far can the government go toward forcing businesses to serve everyone? Some restaurants refuse service unless the customers are wearing shirt and shoes (or at least some kind of footwear). One can argue that health and safety should be valid considerations for businesses to be able to refuse service.

      I don’t know where to draw the line here, but I suspect that some people have intentionally conflated the right of a business to select the products it offers with discrimination against LGBTQ for the purposes of generating controversy.

  8. James R. Henry says:

    I believe that it is the business’ right to operate their business as they please. It seems the court rules in favor of being popular among various groups, rather than protect the rights of every person…including the business owner’s!

    1. guidvce4 says:

      Totally agree. The business was not funded nor founded by the public nor the government. Therefore, it is a private enterprise and should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If the public does not like the reason, then the business will not prosper and cease to exist.
      This case like all the rest of the LGBT cases are tests to see how far the movement can go in shoving their lifestyle down the throats of the general public.

      1. Patty Wileman says:

        I agree and it happens to other businesses it just can’t seem to happen if it’s a Muslim or if it’s a gay person were transgender . True christians have a believe what the Bible says is what they try to live by . And I’m sure if they knew that there was a male and a female just came to shack up at their place they wouldn’t agree with that either but they wouldn’t have this problem . You go to a Muslim bakery and I guarantee you’re not going to get a cake with two men are cake with two women but do they do that with the Muslims no . You going to a Muslim restaurant say you want something to do with pork good luck with that . If they have a story and you asked them to order you some bacon good luck with that . However I’m going to say it’s their choice just the same as you can go someplace else and buy it so why cause problems . And there’s a lot of good gay people out there that wouldn’t pull this kind of crap but there’s so many I’m out there that have to be a bully and this is one of those couples

    2. Sandra says:

      I agree.

      1. Tom B says:

        Sandra…Respectfully…if a retail business wants to set its own rules as to which parts of the public it wants to exclude, then it should opt out of the police, fire, sanitation etc services that are provided by the public…Peace…Tom B

  9. Rev. Laurie G. Cleveland, RN says:

    B&B’s are different than hotels, etc. because they allow people into their homes. If somebody believes fererently that certain types of behavior isn’t tolerated, than they should have the right to deny people the right to stay in their home. This should have been discussed as a POV prior to any reservations being made. It has to do with a person’s First Amendment rights and unfortuately, the LBGT community is taking things too far in my opinion. Yeshua understood that gays existed while he was on the earthplane and he treated them as he would anybody else–with compassion and unconditional love. Whenever you get somebody who is trying to not only run a bysiness from THEIR HOMES, but it is against their belief system, that is when the courts need to back off. It is different if they were running a motel, restaurant, etc. Just because a person puts a sign out in front of their house that they are running a B&B, it behooves the people wishing to stay there to politely ask if this is acceptable or not. There have been cases upon cases targeted at Christians, the last big one was a person who ran a bakery and had made cakes for these two men before for birthdays, etc., drew the line when they asked him to make a wedding cake for them. I felt that was his right. I still do. It is like the situation that I find myself in now. I have lived in this apartment from hell for 3.5 years and last fall because the landlord took advantage of the door being cracked open clearly had entered the apartment without my consent or a 24 hr. notice. I was coming in with Markie who was rightfully upset because his bitches were barking and screaming like they were in pain. I was on crutches and was going to go into the bldg. when I heard his dulcet tones and went back down the stairs by my car, but when he came out of the bldg., Markie took me by surprise and pulled the leash a few feet out of my hands. He meant business and the landlord jumped over the side of the concrete steps. Nobody was hurt. But now, I have been served with a cuuple of notices to quit and now I have a court date. Fortunately, I also have a deposit on a house in another state and plan on being out anyway by the end of April, but there was nothing said about dogs and he just decided (after the idiots in the front apartment allowed their rottie/pittie mix boy get their beautiful Italian Mastiff bitch. They were all too young to be having puppies and it was totally irresponsible to do so as there is no yard for them to run around in. They have to be walked on leashes, but after the second litter, somebody complained and I heard them talking out in the hallway, thinking it was me (no way with German Shepherds would I even consider doing this) and then they realized where the problem was coming from. I have no idea what they did with their pups and I hope they didn’t put them down, but that mix could be a very volitile mix and is for experienced working dog handlers only. Now, he has changed his mind about animals in mid stream. I say that if it was a problem, then he should have said something at the beginning, not wait until Merry Christmas and take a hike. Things have to be spelled out clearly. I mean you mention GSD and people automatically will not allow them, whether you have renter’s insurance that cover them or not. It doesn’t matter that they are normally nice animals. My rights are being trampled upon. Same thing. Who is right here? I’m being discriminated against because I own dogs. These people are being discriminated against because of their sexual preference. Discrimination is wrong–period,–but the courts, in all of their rulings have trampled on the rights of Christians and no other group that I am aware of. If this had been, say, Muslim owned, because of the current “political correctness” they probably would have won, so what is the difference? There is none. It shouldn’t matter one way or the other.

    1. Shane Lowrey says:

      It’s a Public Accommodation that broke Public Accommodation Law. The owner is irrelevent. It’s the business that was sued.

  10. Tom says:

    I know what really happened. The B&B owner heard the lesbian couple talking about scissoring and the owner thought they were talking about actual scissors and that they’d cut up the curtains and drapes inside the room. I could see that happening to me, I’d be devestated.

    1. Minister Carey says:

      This comment is so funny. Thanks for the humor Tom.

      1. Tom says:

        My pleasure.

  11. Rev Buzz says:

    This is less about a court ruling and more about individual interpretation of the scriptures. Ardent believers in the biblical passages against homosexuality are going to adhere to such beliefs throughout their lives, to include their business lives. Those who consider themselves more progressively liberal will believe that religious doctrine should follow the cultural norms of today. So as I have said before, it is the religious hierarchy that needs to come together and resolve this conflict, so that members of the congregation won’t continually be at odds with one another. In our society which tries to separate church from state, the courts can not be faulted for their rulings in these matters, when the adherents to the scriptures can’t even come together in agreement. Doing that which is right requires agreement on what is right.

    1. Bob says:

      Rev Buzz,
      Good points. I also do not hear much about the scriptural justification to refuse service to gays. I understand the belief that homosexuality is a sin, but denying service is a different issue. Why selectively refuse service to those sinners, when we readily serve all other sinners? I am genuinely interested in what the scriptural justification might be if anyone has insight.

      1. Rev Buzz says:

        Well Bob, you are correct in noting the inequality of punishments for sins committed. Since you asked, Leviticus 20 enumerates the punishment for sin in the case of homosexuality, it is stated; “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death.” There are many other sins listed which also call for the sinners to be put to death. In today’s society, there are few Christians that would advocate such punishment, yet they claim to strongly adhere to the scriptures. These are the kinds of things that I have stated need to be corrected by church hierarchy. We should not have some congregants believing they are justified in doing things because the scriptures say so, while others believe in an approach consistent with the realities of the world we live in. I say again; we can’t “Do that which is right” until we agree what is right.

        So the bottom line to your question about the scriptural justification to refuse service is; they should not only have been refused service, but also put to death. Doesn’t quite fit our current system of justice; nor should it!

  12. Paul the Gnostic says:

    Cristians claim to follow Jesus and he came for ALL of us. Now some so called christians and and evangelical use the bible to discriminate. They behave in a satanic way.

  13. Minister Carey says:

    The courts operate under legal statutes. I, personally, would need to read the entire case. Most specifically how the B&B defended its position. Is there a difference between public and private? Yes. Some due diligence is required.

  14. babalwa says:

    it depend to anyone belives,but when I truely speaking goverment does not recognised Christianity

  15. Rev.B. Klaas says:

    it’s is going to be difficult for us as Pastors to do God commandment because of Government.

    1. Bob says:

      Government doesn’t prevent you from following the Commandments, but your beliefs may result in limitations regarding your career path or business opportunities. If you think that consuming alcoholic beverages is a sin, I wouldn’t become a bar tender. If you believe that certain medications are immoral, I wouldn’t become a pharmacist (or at least you should understand your beliefs may limit where you could work). All individuals have to make decisions as to whether a certain course of action is consistent with their beliefs. This is not peculiar to Christians.,

  16. Rev. Lyrik Drakmyth says:

    Ok, please read what I post and think about it in a mature manner before attacking me and accusing me wrongfully of being homophobic. My opinion, the B&B had every right if this is marketed as a “Christian” business. I am not even Christian, I am Pagan…however, they are right. Being gay and living a gay lifestyle is completely against Christian teaching. You can’t just pick and choose what you wish to follow in a religion and what you don’t. If you are Christian, then you believe a gay lifestyle is a mortal sin. Therefore the obvious answer is, find a different religion that fits you…NOT try to force an existing religion to bend to your will. That stance is morally wrong on so many levels and to the educated person makes no sense. I have grown sick of the various groups now days bullying others to bend to their will. Don’t like what they believe in, then obviously you believe in something else…move on and find a religion that fits you best and meanwhile you have no moral right to trample all over someone else’s religion.

    1. M B says:

      I don’t disagree with you about religions bullying each other or your “square peg in round hole” points. That is spot on.

      Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t see at any point a mention of the business advertising in advance of the beliefs of the owner. Discrimination in any form is not legal. The law is secular.

      In my opinion, at its core, this isn’t a religious argument at all. It’s merely a “right to discriminate in business” argument, in which case the simple answer is a resounding No.

      If they wanted to sleep on Mrs. Young’s couch in her personal home, then sure- she would be fully within her rights to say no. Her place of business is subject to the rules of business, not necessarily her personal opinions. Perhaps the service/hospitality industry is not the right line of work for Mrs. Young.

  17. Jeff Grippe says:

    This is not as simple as either side thinks. While there is freedom of religion and you could argue that people shouldn’t be forced to permit activity that is contrary to their beliefs, that is a slippery slope. You could say that your beliefs don’t allow for mixed race couples, or don’t allow unaccompanied women, or any number of things that we would all agree reflect prejudice that shouldn’t be allowed. If you give businesses the right to refuse service to someone on grounds other than behavioral ones, then you open the door to prejudicial behavior. You could argue that being gay is behavioral, but it is only behavioral in the bedroom, where nobody has the right to intrude. It seems to me that the place to draw the line is behavioral. If you say that public passionate sexual behavior won’t be tolerated, then you can apply that to straight and gay couples. If they are not publicly behaving in an objectionable manor, then they are just two women sharing a room. The business owner has no right to monitor what is going on in that room unless the behavior is creating a disturbance. I think the solution here is to create rules for public behavior that can be applied to all sexual preferences.

    Even there, it gets tricky. Most hotels and probably all B&B’s don’t want prostitutes working out of their businesses. You could label that type of activity as someone renting a room and having many visitors who don’t stay for very long. By my behavioral definition above, that type of activity should be allowed, but most hotels don’t allow it and they never get sued by prostitutes. It is not easy to know where to draw the line. As I began with, this is not as simple as either side thinks it is.

  18. M B says:

    Just because a particular minority group gets equal rights, doesnt mean others have less rights. To quote a meme, “It’s not Pie, that isn’t how it works.”

    What Mrs. Young does or does not believe SHOULD NOT be relevant. If you are operating a place of business, discrimination is illegal. Full Stop. Religious belief does not give you the right to break the law. Law in the US is secular and based on the principle of equality (or at least supposedly).

    If you want to define parameters of who may or may not use your services, then you need a much different business model.

    1. Jeff Grippe says:

      I wish it were that simple.

      For example, most hotels don’t allow prostitutes to work out of the hotel. Unless you went in the room and witnessed money changing hands in exchange for sex, you don’t that the hotel guest is anything more than someone who gets a lot of guests who don’t stay very long. A job recruiter could have the same guest profile.

      You could argue that the hotel has the right to prohibit illegal behavior, and that is obvious. Unless you go into that room, which would violate privacy, you don’t know that illegal behavior is going on. So where do you draw the line?

      The law is subject to interpretation and it gets very difficult to figure out.

      Let’s say for a moment that you except the religion test (I know you don’t). When is it simply two women traveling together vs a married (or unmarried) couple? You can’t ask and you can’t monitor behavior inside the room. So even if you believe in the religious exemption, how do you know where to draw the line?

      If you reject the religious exemption (you do, I do as well), how do you give the hotel the ability to prevent illegal behavior like prostitution?

      The issue isn’t simple.

    2. arawngraalrd says:

      This law is questionable, and should be challenged under the thirteenth, at least. Would you say that a restaurant should be forced to serve a woman, even though she could lose a few pounds, and works for Donald Trump?

      1. Jeff Grippe says:

        Here again, it is a slippery slope. If you move in one direction or another you allow or prohibit things that you don’t want to. There is no simple change that you can make. If you allow businesses a choice of who to serve, you allow racism. If you don’t, you open the door for some activity that the business is clearly entitled to prohibit. You would end up with a law that is book length. At the end of it all, you’d end up with someone complaining about over-regulation.

        1. arawngraalrd says:

          I would err to allow Racism, which is an awful business practice, and carries its own retribution.

  19. TigerMoon2 says:

    LGBT are a part of the general public population. If your business is open to the general population it includes them. When you want to pick and choose your customers, that is discrimination. No one is asking the owner to BE gay, but they must acknowledge that gays exist and have the same rights as anyone else. What’s more, they need to display that same smile and concern that they would give any other guest, so there cannot be any of that “I might have to do it, but I don’t have to like it!” attitude toward them. White Christians treated blacks the SAME WAY, before we had to lay down the law. That’s what it takes to keep Christians from getting on their high-horse about people who are NOT just like them, apparently. By the way, I am none of the above and have no horse in this race. It’s a common sense issue.

  20. BERNARD S ANTIN says:

    As a person of faith one cannot just erase or contort Scripture out of its meaning especially if that interpretation runs contrary to how it was understood since the Law Giving at Sinai. Having said that a further distinction needs to be made is what I am doing endorsing a sinful lifestyle or not? Here is the distinction in Phillips the Couple wanted the baker’s talent and artistry to fashion a cake not buying a confection from showcase. Contracting with someone for personal services should be up to the artist to accept or decline the offer for whatever reason— It is unreasonable to make someone work for another on a project they morally have issues with.
    Young however, renting a room to a couple is not an endorsement, Young is not doing anything to advance or hinder the couple’s lifestyle choices. . I doubt the Youngs did background checks on all their guests to determine what their private conduct would be.
    Additionally because orientation is considered an immutable characteristic it enjoys higher Constitutional protection than religious beliefs.

  21. Rain Leaf says:

    What about the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” signs posted on business doors everywhere? A local mart near me even goes further to state; “no bra or sock money”. Is that discrimination? How about when I go to home depot and try to buy a washing machine on credit but they don’t approve me because my score is low? Discrimination of the poor? Discriminations are everywhere and we call them discernment then move on. Certain people however are so self absorbed that they file law suits to prove how victimized they are. This is getting old.

  22. Dr John says:

    There is some research pointing to same gender orientation being genetically determined. If so, it is God’s fault. Put blame where it belongs.

    1. John Owens says:

      There IS research. There are no actual findings.

    2. Woke says:

      There’s more evidence it comes out of childhood abuse.

      1. John Owens says:

        Yes. That is something usually ignored when they try to talk about the genetic stuff that no one can find.

        1. Don says:

          Actual evidence is ignored?
          Or just claims of evidence without any evidence being provided?
          Given the source, I have to ask.

          1. John Owens says:

            Like you ignoring the intelligent design in all creation, yes.

          2. Don says:

            It’s so cute how John tries to move the goalposts hoping nobody will notice.
            You claimed to have concrete evidence for intelligent design.
            Still waiting for you to provide it.
            NOTE – evasions and insults are NOT evidence of intelligent design. They ARE evidence of something else regarding you personally.

          3. John Owens says:

            Don’t even try to put YOUR fake arguing techniques onto ME, Donny. YOU are the one who moves goalposts. Every discussion. When that fails, you lie. Then you insult. Then you move the goalpost again. Try to change the argument so you can win, when everyone knows you lost in epic fashion.

        2. Don says:

          More insults.
          More evasion.
          Still no evidence.
          But *I* am the one who lost. Riiiiight.
          You just keep telling yourself that. Along with your imaginary evidence.

        3. Don says:

          “See, moderators? He is trying to do it again”
          “he has no intellectual integrity”
          It’s so cute how John cries to the moderators while spewing insults in the SAME comment.
          Some hypocrites never learn.

          1. John Owens says:

            “Arf!,” it yapped.

        4. Don says:

          Did you find it yet? Or are you still using the spineless excuse “the evidence is all around you”?
          Asking for a friend.

  23. Oldaabill says:

    A bed in breakfast is a licensed business for profit (business license), not a church. The B&B is not called upon to make a special consideration for the lesbians (like a non-stock cake).

  24. Rowlad Barkley says:

    A B&B has no business and no need to ask whether a heterosexual couple prefers oral sex or some other type. They also have no need to wonder what a gay couple prefers.
    A Gay wedding cake is another matter. A cake decoration is a work of art, and a work of art will be of much higher quality if the artist can have a positive imagination for his work. Such work should not be refused in religious grounds, but on the grounds of artistic incompetence.
    A right to religious belief should be used as an excuse for telling others what they should do or not do.

  25. Robert Messmer says:

    At one time, there was the right to run your business the way you wanted to run it. Indeed, it was well understood that any business could refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. That was before the government decided it could run everyone’s business better than the actual owners.

    1. Don says:

      Yeah, that was also back when this country had Black and White water fountains.
      Thank God that ignorance is going away.

  26. Shane Lowrey says:

    It’s a Public Accommodation that broke Public Accommodation Law. The owner is irrelevent. It’s the business that was sued.

    1. Shane Lowrey says:

      And, about Joe the Baker, SCOTUS did not rule on whether he broke the law (he did), they ruled the state committee that oversaw the original case acted with animus. The state committee and it’s decision were thrown out. He could have been retried by the state, unless that would have been a case of double jeopardy. I’m not sure if it was.

      1. Rev. Dr. Marion Ceruti says:

        Often SCOTUS will send a case back to the lower court for a new trial with instructions designed to correct a problem that the justices found.

        If the same government retries a person for the same offense, it is considered double jeopardy and this is prohibited. However, if a state tries a person for a same offense that another state or a military court tried the person, or if the second jurisdiction were the federal government, it is considered an exception to the prohibition of double jeopardy. To give an example, suppose a person writes a bad check to the federal government in a particular the state. If the state has a law against writing bad checks, the state can try the person but the feds also can. Sentences can run concurrently but don’t have to. They could run consecutively amounting to a longer total sentence than either the state or the fed court would have been able to impose separately. It is a matter that SCOTUS is considering now or has in the past, I don’t remember. The problem arises because states usurp the powers of the federal government and the feds usurp the power of the states. When jurisdictions encroach on each other and overlap like that, it makes a tangled legal web. As always, the devil is in the details.

    2. Rowland Barkley says:

      Of course!
      “Religious belief” should not be discussed by a court, especially as an excuse to deny service.
      A motel in Pannsylvania refused to check me in when they saw my Australian driver’s license. They said they refuse service to all foreigners, because “Foreigners come to this country and do terrible things.” This was not stated as religious belief, but may well have been based upon the media habit of connecting violence with religion.
      I was too tired to drive to the next town, so I had to point out that the receptionist was breaking USA accommodation law in a heavy Indian accent, that his boss was an African American, and that the two of them will look unbelievably stupid on international media committing racial prejudice against an Australian on the total basis of a driver’s license.
      I would have preferred to sleep peacefully in the next town, but didn’t feel safe driving for longer.
      I gave them 30 seconds to check me in or become famous. So they had no choice but to check me in.

  27. Secretary3rd says:

    Do business with me or I shall do my business upon you.

  28. John Owens says:

    No wonder the country is going to crap. Look at the petty nonsense on which our Supreme Court has to decide.

    1. Don says:

      I know, right? That idiot Ken Ham and his Creationist Museum in Kentucky that he tricked the taxpayers into funding.
      That will tie up the courts for years.

      1. John Owens says:

        That Ark thing shouldn’t be tying up anything, if it weren’t for ne’er-do-wells who have nothing better to do than complain about a tourist attraction that draws people from several states to spend their money there. It hardly rates as important in the grand scheme of things.

        1. John Owens says:

          He does seem crazy like a savvy business-man.

          1. Don says:

            Drama Queen

        2. Don says:

          “That Ark thing shouldn’t be tying up anything”

          It tied up (wasted) over 102 million dollars of taxpayer money. And the “good Christians” that stole it still refuse to give any of it back.

          1. John Owens says:

            It did no such thing. Stop being such a drama queen. The State of Kentucky will get that back many times over.

          2. Don says:

            So now reading from a news pages makes one a drama queen.
            Par for the course I suppose.
            I’m confused, aren’t you the same person who was crying about insults earlier?
            Hypocrisy is NOT a virtue.

          3. John Owens says:

            READING the news doesn’t make you a drama queen. You make yourself a drama queen. As for crying, with few exceptions, most of what you type is crying out for attention.

          4. Don says:

            “most of what you type is crying out for attention.”
            Really? Can you show a post where I whined and cried to the moderators like a 6 year old, complaining about being treated the same way I treat others?

            There are at least three from you. I can post them if you’ve “forgotten” again.

          5. John Owens says:

            Since the moderators wrote to me regarding arguing with you, yes, I pointed out that YOU were acting like a childish jerk, like now. See, it seemed that since I am conservative, they were behaving like liberals, and using a different standard on me. Now you are trying to change the argument again, which is your modus operandi, because you need attention. Some kind of sick validation is what you want. Really pitiful.

            See, moderators? He is trying to do it again, because he has no intellectual integrity, but just likes to argue, as though there is a prize for acting stupid.

          6. Don says:

            Sorry, Snowflake, they used the same standards regarding my posts.
            I just didn’t cry about it publicly because I am an adult.
            Imaginary persecution complexes are often indicative of a more serious problem.

  29. MONIQUE L PROULX says:

    WOW! Such nastiness.

    1. John Owens says:

      Yes, the epitome of it.

      1. Don says:

        Yes, the epitome of nastiness. For example, spewing insults when asked for evidence of a claim.
        Another example – falsely accusing a complete stranger of atrocious acts.
        Another example – claiming that replies are a ‘yap” from a dog

        Getting the picture? Hypocrites suck.

        1. John Owens says:

          You would know more about that thing you said hypocrites do than practically anyone else.

          1. Bills Spirit says:

            Oh look, high school bullying at its lamest.

  30. Lionheart says:

    Happy Ostara to all you Pagan’s out there. Green Man and the goddess cometh.

    🦁❤️

    1. MONIQUE L PROULX says:

      Blessings and light to you Lionheart. Spread the love.

  31. Ruth says:

    There should be no issue. Maga hat or gay and lesbian. I think the hate in this world is just to wildly spread. People need to show more love and tolerance. So you don’t agree
    1) don’t or do wear Maga hat
    2) don’t worry what people do in their bedroom as long as it’s consensual.
    Spread love not hate in all Realms of your life.

  32. A druid says:

    The law of the land says that if one is doing business with the public it must do business with all the public equally.
    Gays, blacks, women, pagans and baptists all pay the same taxes and therefore all are treated equally under the law. This is not religious persecution. It is the opposite.
    If you want to do business privately you may do so, but to do business with the public you must do business with all the public equally.
    How is this a difficult concept?

    1. Tom B says:

      A druid…i agree…but it goes further…it is the public that provides the fire, police, sanitation and other services to the business, through the payment of taxes…Peace…Tom B

    2. John Owens says:

      So, let me get this straight… If I run, say, a barber shop, and all of my customers are black males, and I’ve learned how to cut all the styles they like, do the edge-ups, pick their faces so the hairs don’t become ingrown, etc., and some blonde-haired dude like Joe Dirt comes in and wants a shag hair-cut like David Cassidy wore in the Partridge Family, that I am BOUND BY LAW to cut that dude’s hair? Are you for real?

      1. Don says:

        “pick their faces so the hairs don’t become ingrown, etc”

        I love it when closeted racists out themselves with their own words.
        No need to mention the fact that the analogy itself is fatally flawed.

        1. John Owens says:

          You see, you don’t know anything about black men, Don, yet you call me a racist because I do. I don’t know why stupid white liberals do that, or why they thing it is all right for them to do it. It is offensive as calling someone a racial slur.

          Many, if not most black men MUST have their faces picked if they do not use chemical depilatories or grow beards, because the hairs of their beard will often curl back under their skin, irritating their face. Many cannot use chemical depilatories because of sensitive skin. For this reason, in places of employment that normally demand that men be clean-shaven, black men and a few white men are allowed to wear very close-cropped beards. But, I guess, since you have never known any black people very well, you wouldn’t know that.

          I did not out myself. YOU outed yourself through your ignorance. I have lived with and among and gone to school with and worked and ridden and gone to church with black people all my life. I have black family members. We barbecue together and vacation together and spend the night together and we have parties together and sometimes shoot skeet together. My earliest memories are of Prestwick, Scotland, where we were stationed, and we at first stayed in a boarding house with another American family who were black, and even after we got a house, we celebrated American national holidays with them for the three years we were there.

          And this is not an analogy. This is a hypothetical, very possible situation where the principal that A druid was using would certainly apply, if it existed, which it doesn’t.

          People who do not know anything at all about other ethnic groups should just jump to call others racist when they say something innocuous. It is moronic.

          1. Don says:

            Yikes! It would appear “someone” has a guilty conscience – just look at that wall of text!

          2. John Owens says:

            Nice window-licker deflection.

          3. Don says:

            “window-licker”
            How quaint. A racist AND an ableist. Could’ve called that one. Thanks for making it public.

          4. John Owens says:

            YOU made your ignorance about black people public, then your ignorance of the lexical definition of the terms you use to deride people who know more than you.

Comments are closed.