picture of the restaurant's instagram statement
"It absolutely does feel that there is religious discrimination going on here,” the conservative Christian group says. 

Should restaurants be able to turn away patrons for their religious beliefs?

A Virginia restaurant sparked controversy recently after canceling a Christian group’s dinner reservation, pointing to its conservative views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

The restaurant says they chose to cancel the reservation for the safety and comfort of their staff, some of whom belong to the LGBTQ community.

But the Family Foundation of Virginia – the Christian organization in question – is firing back, arguing that its members have been discriminated against for their faith, and many evangelicals are rallying behind that claim.

Which side is right? 

Dinner For None

“We’ve been canceled again,” began a blog post on the Family Foundation's website.

The non-profit group fights to limit abortion rights and opposes same-sex marriage, and describes itself as an advocate for “Biblical principles” that “enable families to flourish at the state and local level.”

It was those principles that got their reservation at Metzger Bar and Butchery canceled.

The restaurant, co-owned by Top Chef and Chopped alum Brittanny Anderson, explained in an Instagram post that they refused service to the group due to concerns that its staff would be made "uncomfortable or unsafe" by their presence.

The New Lunch Counter?

Family Foundation of Virginia president Virginia Cobb countered with a blog post likening this treatment to African-Americans being denied seats at restaurants in the 1950s and 60s, and called out the restaurant for a perceived double standard.

“Welcome to the double standard of the left, where some believe Jack Phillips must be forced to create a wedding cake as part of the celebration of a same-sex ceremony but any business should be able to deny basic goods and services to those who hold biblical values around marriage,” she wrote.

“It’s stunning, and it does feel a bit like 'no Christians can eat here.' Because if you go to our website, you'll find that we are a faith-based organization,” she explained. “So it absolutely does feel that there is religious discrimination going on here.”

Conservative evangelicals came to the organization’s defense – many agreeing that the restaurant was wrong to deny them service. But for those on the other side of the argument, there’s a satisfying sense of justice.

Haven’t Christian wedding vendors been denying gay couples service for, well... ever?

A Taste of Their Own Medicine

Those in support of the restaurant point out that they're simply taking a play out of the evangelical playbook, and that this is just desserts.

Whether it’s a Christian baker, Christian web designer, Christian florist, Christian wedding invitation designer, or another Christian baker, the courts have repeatedly ruled that Christian wedding vendors can turn away same-sex couples as clients if their faith guides them to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman. 

As commenters on our own Facebook post on this story argued, “if Christians don't want to serve or do business with those who don't share their beliefs, then those who hold those beliefs shouldn't have to serve or do business with the Christians who feel that way.”

Should a restaurant be allowed to turn away customers for their Christian beliefs? That’s the question at the center of...

Posted by Universal Life Church Ministries on Thursday, December 8, 2022

In other words, Christian groups “can’t have it both ways,” the restaurant's supporters say.

Where do you stand? Was the restaurant entitled to turn away the group due to its views, or is there a legitimate claim of religious discrimination here? 


  1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

    Plenty of Christians have eaten there in the past, and plenty have enjoyed a decent meal since that hate group was denied service. It's not their Christianity that't the problem, it's their abhorrent bigoted discriminatory political perspectives that makes them unfit customers. I wouldn't feed the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Nazis, Klan, etc., either. Stop blaming your deities for your bigotries.

    1. Gregory Joseph Behl's Avatar Gregory Joseph Behl

      Actually, I read the hate in you. I don't care as a business owner if you choose to not serve someone because I think you should be allowed to do business with whoever you want to Mr Bigot. The problem is people like you.

      1. Rev'd Andrew's Avatar Rev'd Andrew

        So, Gregory, you don't feel it is appropriate for Joe to detest Nazis, Klan members, Proud Boys or Oath Keepers? You think Joe is a 'Bigot' for standing against these hate-filled people? Hmmm. Interesting position you have chosen to take.

      2. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

        You're projecting, muffin. You're also letting the rest of us know you don't deserve a seat in the lifeboat. ;-)

        1. Donald J. Winfield's Avatar Donald J. Winfield

          You are showing your own political leanings. Name calling and demeaning people, are not valid discussion tactics,

          1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

            Cry more, muffin. Oh, and your on my list of those who deserve to starve, now, muffin. 🤣

  1. Wilberta M. Berry's Avatar Wilberta M. Berry

    If people were true Christians they would know Jesus abhorred public display of "religion". The only important thing is for God to know what's in your heart. It really isn't anyone else's business. Christians who want to "talk" about their Christianity instead of demonstrating through their actions deserves what they get. There is no denying that Christians have politicized their religion instead of demonstrating it by walking in the foot step of Jesus

    1. Kristina Marie Brumby's Avatar Kristina Marie Brumby

      Amen Reverend!

      If anyone is proving "double standard", it's absolutely the Conservative Christian patrons.

    2. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

      Well said.

      1. Elvin St. James's Avatar Elvin St. James

        You Go Reverend!

    3. Rev. Rory's Avatar Rev. Rory


    4. Troels Qvist's Avatar Troels Qvist

      Agreed i still cant find out why People would turn down business though.

    5. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      I can't recall anything in the bible about Jesus preaching in a church, or people going to his office for private sessions, so he must have been in public when he spoke to people about all that silly stuff.

      1. Ralph A. Lawrence's Avatar Ralph A. Lawrence

        In the time of Jesus there were no "churches" in the Christian sense of today, but there were synagogues, the Jewish equivalent. In Luke 4:14-30 Jesus is preaching in his hometown synagogue at Nazareth. He preached so provocatively that they drove him out. Since Jesus had no "office" per se, he would of course counseled with people in the open, in the streets, etc., wherever he might be. One interesting private session was at night, described in John 3:1-21, the Nicodemus story. He basically preached in the open, for example the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:1--7:29, where he taught both his own group of disciples (Matthew 5:1-2) and to the gathered crowds (Matthew 7:28-29).

  1. Kenneth Eagle Spirit's Avatar Kenneth Eagle Spirit

    Well, I suppose what goes around comes around. This'll make for an interesting court case. Stay tuned ...

    1. Shirley Jean Davis's Avatar Shirley Jean Davis

      If the courts allow the Christian right groups to have free rein in other people's businesses, that is a double standard and should not be allowed.

      1. Kenneth Eagle Spirit's Avatar Kenneth Eagle Spirit


  1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

    I for one would not feel safe as a customer. You never know when a Christian in the name of God would pull out a gun and start shooting at the wait staff for being someone THEY believe God doesn't like and THEY BELEIVE is a sinner.

    1. Jean Bakula's Avatar Jean Bakula

      Yes, I believe that was the point of the business owners. There have been a lot of hate crimes by the religious right as of late.

  1. Matthew Mastrogiovanni's Avatar Matthew Mastrogiovanni

    It's good that they're keeping hate groups out of their establishment.

  1. Robert Hauck, MD, FAAP's Avatar Robert Hauck, MD, FAAP

    Many commentators have it right: That restaurant serves a multitude of Christians on a daily basis. They exclude this group not because of their Christianity, but because of their political position to deprive Americans of constitutional rights. Rev. Bob in Washington

  1. Colleen McAllister's Avatar Colleen McAllister

    Restaurants have the right to refuse service for whatever reason. Therefore this restaurant has the right to cancel the reservation of this group.

    1. Beth's Avatar Beth

      Not exactly. They have the right to refuse service to someone disrupting their business. That would include anyone who might have disrupted their business or a similar business in the past. They do not have the right to discriminate on race, religion, color, disability, etc. That doesn't just mean making other customers uncomfortable. It does include outright threats toward staff and customers.

      This falls under the public accommodation law. The very same laws that ended Jim Crow - yes, blacks could eat in southern restaurants even if it made customers and employees uncomfortable.

      It depends on just what else this group was doing or has done.

  1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

    They have just as much right to refuse service as the cake bakers/flower arrangers/photographers did. BUT in saying this, they might run into a problem as if the Christian group files a violation of religion case against them, they will most likely lose the case as if they are doing this on the basis of religion, they cant do this. IF they are doing it on the basis of their opinion they stand a good chance in winning

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      It's not their religion that's the cause of their exclusion, it's their political ideology. Plenty of other Christians eat there without issue. The hate group is going to have a hard time blaming this on their deity.

      1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

        Sorry but no, they clearly state that Christians are not allowed. Try your myth somewhere else. Or you can contact them and ask them yourself and what exactly are you going to do when they tell you the exact same thing, that if you are a christian you need not come.

        1. Joachim Holister Rigor's Avatar Joachim Holister Rigor

          There statement clearly says "A group"... I did not see the term "Christian" anywhere within it.

        2. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

          Oh good heavens, Gray. You’re playing a victim here. It’s pathetic. They CLEARLY didn’t say all Christians. Then again your idea of a Christian rallies behind a crappy “only a true Scotsmen” defense. How about you contact them. Ask them directly. Though something tells me that won’t happen because you don’t like being proven wrong. Again.

          1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

            Nobody is playing anything Ruhnke, except maybe you. if you would have bothered to check with the restaurant, they would have told you to your face that they wont allow "Christians" to come into their establishment. But then again I see you dont let some imagined slight get in the way of your rant. You have been proved wrong but you just cant stand it and go off on a tangent. Then again if this helps you sleep at night then feel free but one of these days you are going to have a life changing wake up call and then it will be too late to change your attitude.

            1. Tom's Avatar Tom

              Stop projecting, Daniel. It's really pathetic.

              1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Nobodys projecting tom, except maybe you

            2. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

              Stand what? The fact they told a group of nasty right wing Christians no service to a group of selects Christians no? Again, those loud mouths represent a minority of Christians. Not all Christians. If you knew how to read and not squawk, you’d know this. But nope. I had my life changing wake up all ready. Thanks though, you saying the quiet part out loud is cute though. With the Gods, nothing is never too late, not even in death. You’d know if you weren’t such a husk of a human being, Mr. Gray.

              1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Sorry Ruhnke, guess your bias is showing yet again and thats why people are laughing at you

              2. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

                My bias? Hah! This coming from a guy with a whirlwind or right wing biases. Calm down, Kettle, I get I’m just as black as you are. The difference is that my leanings Mean even dunces like yourself get to voice their opinions, were as right wingers, yourself included, play victim so that only their echo chamber gets to be heard. All that laughter in your head sounds like acute schizophrenia. Go get meds for that.

              3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                sorry pot, but I state fact not opinion as you do. Way too easy to prove you wrong and thats why you are upset.

              4. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

                But you’ve proven nothing so far. Just pigeon strut in the comments. Again, you never backup your statements. Youve only proven you’re an arrogant braggart, darling. To say I’m whining is shows how deeply ignorant you are. Gaslight, project, feebly try to manipulate all you want, it’s all you know how to do. Carter earned every liver spot on his hand by being a true Christian, he’s lived a life you can only covet. He’s sheltered those in need by building housing, even in his 90’s. There is no ball, this isn’t a game, you’re just a child playing at grownup, a swine playing at being a Christian. The closest thing you’ve come to a fact is that Carter is old. That’s about it. 🤷🏻‍♂️.

              5. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Sure I have. All you have to do is actually do something foreign to you, and that is ASK the people in question. But then again you wont do that as it would destroy your rant.

              6. Tom's Avatar Tom

                Daniel, I've asked you countless times for your source and all I've ever gotten back in return is "what? are you too stupid to do a Google search?"

              7. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                whats wrong Tom? Admitting that you cant use a search engine? Or just too lazy to click on the link to the site that is included in the story? The name of the place that you seem not to be able to find is the Metzger Bar and Butchery 801 N 23rd Street Richmond Virginia. And if you ask for the manger Kjell Anderson, who is an avowed Anti Religious person, has not allowed any Christian groups to rent his restaurant and has even told people wearing a Cross pendant and not bothered anyone, to leave because "that cross symbol is a symbol of hate and non inclusion" You would have been able to find all this out if you would have bothered to actually check.

              8. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Already proved your bias more time then carter has liver spots but do please keep on whining if that alo9ws you to sleep at night. And if you come back and whine more then it will have proved my point and statement about you. Balls in your court.

    2. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

      No shoes, no shirt, no anti-lbgtq lobbyists.

      1. Loren William Kinzel's Avatar Loren William Kinzel

        Let's not forget loaded sidearms.

    3. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

      They base their garbage anti human rights political opinions on bad interpretations of the Bible. Maybe go the way of the Amish and leave the rest of the world alone. More than half of Christians support marriage equality understanding they aren’t forced to marry someone who is LGBTQ+. This minority of hateful fools has every right to their views, but they have no right to force the rest of us to capitulate to their views and live as blandly as they do.

      1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

        No its YOU who seem to base your opinion on misinterpretation of the scriptures. Nice try thought. And where do you get the stats proving your false claim of more then half of the christians support gay marriage? Please show this or its just your opinion and a wrong one at that

        1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke


          What’s the matter Gray? Didn’t want to your own research and be proven wrong. All you ever do is run your mouth and have wrong opinion. Attitudes have been changing the last 15+ years. More than half support marriage equality. It’s just a very vocal group of evangelicals and other conservative interpreting Christians that don’t want it. Like I said. Go the way of the Amish and go away.

          1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

            Whats the matter Ruhnke, you want to try and prove your myths with a highly discredited Pew research claim? By their own claim over 74% of people and respondents do NOT agree with claims made by groups like Pew. But hey, keep believing this myth if it helps you sleep at night

            1. Tom's Avatar Tom

              This is pretty rich coming from the guy who can't ever back up his claims with supporting evidence.

              1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Really Tom? Go do a google search and educate yourself. Pew has been proved wrong more times then they care to count. Their own director and publisher are both registered Democrats and even they freely admit they oversample a group to get the results they want. and they admitted this on their own webpage. So try again Tom.

              2. Tom's Avatar Tom

                So actually provide a link that supports your claims.

                You say a whole lot of things are fact and that we should use Google to find the proof you're relying on except when someone actually does a Google search to try and figure out what you're talking about, nothing comes up that supports your argument. Then you just tell that person that they must be stupid if they can't use a Google search to find your proof.

                You could just provide the proof like so many other people here do but instead you resort to insulting people who disagree with you (and sometimes those who agree with you too).

              3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                already did tom

              4. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

                Nope. Ya sure didn’t. You made a claim. That’s not a link to your source. Because you don’t have one, most likely your source is just some rabbit hole that’s not credible. TrY aGaIn

              5. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                sure did, but then again you would naturally try and discredit it because it destroys you

              6. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

                Yet here I am. Unfazed. Lol like I said before, all meow and no claws. You didn’t post any links to support your claim. None. Zilch. Just more mouthing.

            2. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

              So catty with no claws, Mr. Gay. Whoops. I mean Gray. You have nothing to back your claim other than your sneering childish attitude. As per usual, all nasty and no substance. You’re the proverbial pigeon in the chess game, knocking over the board when you haven’t even made a real move. Typical of you. An when you’re not pigeoning about the place, you’re parroting your bronze aged hate. So really, you’re just a bird brain whose arguments never take flight. No wonder you squawk so loud and so shrill.

              1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                Please dont try and push your lifestyle on me Ruhnke. You are the one who has been proved wrong in this issue and yet here you are like a parrot repeating the same claims because you have nothing else to fall back on.

              2. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

                My lifestyle? Considering how Christians have been pushing their views on others by bullying and shaming non Christians the last 2000 years, you really shouldn’t project those shortcomings onto me. Let’s not forget the dividing lines that Catholics and Protestants have made towards and pushed on one another in the last 500 years. Then you need remember that many Christians have been pushing white supremacist values in their religion the last 500 years as well. Oceans and rivers of blood have been spilled in the name of your cult.

                It’s only been in the last 150 years or so that people have tried to push back against it. An again. These people are not targeting all Christians, just right biased pushing their agenda and lifestyles on others. The owners are trying to protect their staff from theocratic politics. Nothing more. Maybe if those right wingers didn’t try to use their religion to try and shield their insane politics, we’d not be having this conversation. Yet here we are.

                You make many claims and never, not once, back them up with any kind of data. So no, I’ve not been proven wrong by you. You make the claim. Now back it up. Oh right, as per usual, you can’t, because the data out there doesn’t support your claim. You’re just another vicious blatherskite from Oklahoma scared of the world without any real reason, other than you were brainwashed that way. Poor thing.

              3. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                whine much do you Ruhnke?

              4. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

                sort of like what you are doing now Runhke? if we refuse to believe whatever claim or flavor of the day you decide to claim we are now supposedly racist-bigoted-homophobes and worse. get it through your head that not everyone follows your line of beliefs or opinions and to whine and cry about it make you look very foolish and petulant.

        2. Joachim Holister Rigor's Avatar Joachim Holister Rigor

          You seem to be hiding behind your interpretation of the scriptures to support your bigotry.

      2. Darlene Borggreen's Avatar Darlene Borggreen

        Well said.

    4. Dawn's Avatar Dawn

      Too many hate groups stand under their cross and call it religion..

  1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

    @Rev. Elizabeth I disagree with you. We have all seen Christians who are fanatics and are willing to kill people who do not agree with THEIR religious beliefs. The owner of the restaurant is just trying to protect their employees and guests from Christians who are full of hate an intolerance. We have all seen Christians who go on shooting sprees killing people because of THEIR beliefs. Why can't Christians be accepting of their fellow human and just get along?

    1. David Cox's Avatar David Cox

      Name a real Christian that has done that...not just say they are Christian but actually are....they are wolves in sheep's clothing

      1. Tom's Avatar Tom

        You're making what's called the No True Scotsman fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Just because you don't believe that such a person is a "true Christian" doesn't negate the fact that there are a significant number of people who identify as Christians who hold extreme enough beliefs to kill someone who they view as a mortal enemy.

        The fact of the matter is that a statistically significant number of mass shooters in America have been white, Christian males.

      2. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

        @David Cox What makes one a "real" Christian or a "fake" Christian? The Bible tells us there is a Faith Test (1 John 5:1) “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” John's first test requires us to believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

        Mass shooters and serial killers are white Christian men, with a few rare exceptions.

        Here's a list of known Christians mass killers. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Earle Nelson, Henry Lee Lucas, Gary Ridgway, Dean Corll, Wayne Williams. None of these were wolves, they were all sheep.

        And there are more sheep, Connor Betts (Dayton nightclub, Aug 2019), Patrick Crusius (El Paso Walmart, Aug 2019), DeWayne Craddock (Virginia Beach, May 2019), David Long (Thousand Oaks, Nov 2018), Robert Bowers (Pittsburgh synagogue, Oct 2018), Dimitrios Pagourtzis (Santa Fe High School, May 2018), Nikolas Cruz (Stoneman Douglas High School, Feb 2018), Devin Kelley (Sutherland Springs church, Nov 2017), Stephen Paddock (Las Vegas, Oct 2017), Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook, Dec 2012), James Holmes (Aurora theater, July 2012), Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine High School, April 1999), George Hennard (Killeen, 1991), James Huberty (San Ysidro, 1984), Charles Whitman (Austin, 1966) and Patrick Sherill (Edmond, 1986) have in common? They are white Christian men. There is only one (one) mass shooting carried out by an Asian, Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech, Apr 2007), and two (two) carried out by Muslims: Omar Mateen (Orlando nightclub, June 2016) and Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik (San Bernardino, Dec 2015).

        1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

          Douglas, what do makes you think all those murderers were Christians. Forgive me if I'm ignorant on the subject, for I haven't had any desire learn about the personal lives of any such people, but can't recall any news coverage about those murderers being Christians. I wonder if you're assuming all of the ones who didn't claim to be members of other religions probably were Christians, since Christians are under the mistaken impression that the U.S.A. is a Christian nation. I can see how some of them were crazy enough to believe they were Christians, and some of them may have even been crazy enough to think it was their christian duty to murder those people, but surely not all of the men who's names you mentioned thought they were Christians. And even those of them who thought they were, how could they truly be?

          1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

            @Carl Bernard Elfstrom You are asking a great question. What makes me think all of the mass murderess I listed and most mass killers in the are Christians? Because they are. The fact they ALL identified as being Christian and the other I haven't listed are as well. You can easily fact check my claim.

            1. Loren William Kinzel's Avatar Loren William Kinzel

              An awful lot of people identify as Christian because they grew up having to go to Sunday school & are not identifying as part of any other religious group. This of course does not make them Christians. On the B side, Christians are humans & their faith does not prevent chemical imbalances that causes craziness. (mass shooters) But the main topic is not issues caused by chemical imbalances. It is about intolerance of those different than yourself. These attitudes do not align with the teachings of Christ. Can you call yourself an astronomer but declare the earth is flat?

              1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

                @Loren William Kinzel So what makes a Christian a Christian?

                You asked, "Can you call yourself an astronomer but declare the earth is flat?" Yes Many of the early Christian astronomers did say the Earth was flat for thousands of years. But at the same time there were also astronomers making observations saying the earth was a sphere.

                Unlike religion, science is self correcting and as we learned more we realized the earth could not be flat. And realized the earth was not at the center of God's universe. And as we continued to collect more data and take pictures we are convinced the earth is not flat and is really an irregularly shaped ellipsoid. But that's still not stopping people from discounting all of that evidence and declaring the earth is flat. Some do it because of their Christian beliefs. Others to do it for the clicks or as a hoax/practical joke.

      3. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

        Ahhh yes... the 'No true Christian' cherry picking fallacy.

    2. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

      True that ✔️

      1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

        @Rev. Elizabeth Yup, those are the fact. Easily fact checked.

  1. Nancy Minter's Avatar Nancy Minter

    I think it's important to remember that the restaurant didn't turn them away for their claimed Christianity.

    They turned them away for their political actions in the public sphere that do damage to real people.

    I thin folks would do well to remember; religion is like a penis. It's great if you have one, and it's fine to be proud of it. But when you start trying to shove it down everyone's throat w/o permission, there's a problem.

  1. Ann's Avatar Ann

    I spent decades serving the public many of who hated me for numerous reasons. Sometimes I was uncomfortable, sometimes I was frightened because of threats but I kept serving with a smile. Not once did I do something to someones food: not once did I refuse to serve somebody. Grow up people.

    1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

      @Ann I for one would not feel safe as a customer. You never know when a Christian in the name of God would pull out a gun and start shooting at the wait staff for being someone THEY believe God doesn't like and THEY BELEIVE is a sinner.

      1. Ann's Avatar Ann

        Ya, because that happens all the time. It's not just Christians who carry guns; I for one would love to have open carry here. That would cut down on men attacking women pretty fast.

        1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

          @Ann I an in complete agreement with you, and I am sure many other would also. Not sure it would cut down on the number of attacks but it would sure greatly reduce the number number of Christians, pastors, ministers and priests in the world. Are you saying that would be a good thing?

          1. Ann's Avatar Ann

            When I said "Ya, because that happens all the time" it was sarcasm. If women are carrying guns men will think twice before attacking them. I'm not sure why you would think that would reduce the nummber of Christians, pastors, ministers, and priests unless it was meant as a really bad spin.

            1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

              @Ann Why would women carrying guns reduce the number of Christians, pastors, ministers, and priests in the world? Because they rape women... If the women shoot and kill them, there would be less of them in the world.

  1. Joachim Holister Rigor's Avatar Joachim Holister Rigor

    If owners of bakeries, and other businesses can use their religion as a basis for refusing service to those with whom they disagree, then by precedent set, businesses are free to refuse service based on certain beliefs and actions as well. This is a slippery slope, and a can of worms that was opened by Christians. and as we all know, "You reap what you sow."

  1. Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox's Avatar Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox

    We accomplished something similar against the “moms for Liberty” hate group in Colorado Springs. Got them bumped from two different restaurants! Now they meet at a “gun club” so they “feel safe.”

    Serves them right. Religion should not have any special privileges. They are no different from any other group.

  1. David Cox's Avatar David Cox

    Yall talk about haters but yall hate...yall are just going in circles. I think yall are trying to convince yourselves that you are ok that you don't need God but you will never fill that void until you accept what Jesus did for you

    1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

      My void was filled long ago, but not by Christianity. The Gods spoke and I listened. You project godlessness on those who don’t have the same religious views as you do. How sad, maybe it’s you who is trying convince yourself that only your view is right. We are being critical of interpretation, but you see it hateful. How childish and lacking in critical thinking.

    2. Lionheart's Avatar Lionheart

      Looks like you are in the minority of approval for your post, David.....again. Could you be barking up the wrong religious idalogical tree 🤔


  1. Ronaldo's Avatar Ronaldo

    What would happen if we removed all protections from groups and allowed private businesses to serve whomever they please, as well as denying service to anyone they please? Will the free market step in and create businesses who serve those the other businesses will not? I recently read about a nightclub that refuses entry to men, and have not seen any legal challenges to that yet. What would happen if a restaurant decided not to serve anyone under fifty years old? Or if a club decided no one over thirty would be allowed in? If the majority of people boycott any business that tries something like that, free enterprise will take care of that matter pretty quickly.

    1. Beth's Avatar Beth

      We tried that. It was the Jim Crow South.

      I too, thought it would be a "free market solution", as a non-discriminatory business has a bigger pool from which to draw customers. The thing was it didn't work that way... there ended up black-only businesses and white-only businesses. Start a new business, and you had to choose one way or the other - or NO ONE would do business with you. It took government to step in.

    2. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

      That night club is in England, which does not operate under the US Constitution, or Supreme Court... who struck down the 'separate but equal' notion a long time ago.

  1. Glen Marshall's Avatar Glen Marshall

    At no time do the freedoms in our Constitution protect you from accountability for the manner in which you exercise them. The restaurant chose to deny service, and they will be accountable for that.

    During the Freedom Movement times, some businesses chose to exclude people of color because of the owners' beliefs. Some of them claimed it was a religious matter. They were still held legally accountable. One might hope for some consistency from the courts.

    1. Asa William Sprague, II's Avatar Asa William Sprague, II

      You seem to imply that the group who was denied service has constitutional protection for the way in which they chose to exercise their freedoms; which sounds like a double-standard.

      Consistency regarding this issue seems unlikely to come from the courts. The courts decided a baker and web site designer can refuse services based solely on individual personal beliefs, but they have yet to allow that type of protection to be given to any group other than Christians.

  1. Paul Dysart's Avatar Paul Dysart

    It’s unfortunate that certain groups of people want to be able to exercise their ‘rights’ against others, but are vehemently opposed to those others exercising their rights.

    This is a serious double standard, and direct violation of the Golden Rule.

    The degree of hypocrisy is mind numbing.

    I think we all can agree that if these different people truly had a mind to follow the example of Christ, they would not seek to marginalize customers, but would rather welcome them in and hope that their good example might influence those others.

    There is no bigger example of hypocritical intolerance.

    1. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

      Would you object if a Chucky Cheese location refused reservations for a NAMBLA meeting?
      There are common sense limits to your lofty notions.

  1. Rodney Knight's Avatar Rodney Knight

    Yes they have the right to not serve they group because they fear the groups extreme views will make their Staff feel unsafe in their work environment and uncomfortable if a Christian bakery or wedding vendors can refuse service to same sex couple because they are uncomfortable with the violation of the religious views then Metzger Bar and Butchery should have the the right to refuse this group service to protect their employees from feeling unsafe or uncomfortable work environment due to the groups extreme views they can not have it both way by saying "we can deny you service because your same sex couple and that is against our religion but you can not deny us our service because our views cause you employees to feel unsafe or uncomfortable due to our views you trampling our rights.

  1. Ron Winterstein's Avatar Ron Winterstein

    The group who got canceled should stop whining and take their hatred to the church potluck.

  1. Rev Ned's Avatar Rev Ned

    🤔“Pro-lifers” and homophobes have been known to kill people who don’t believe what they do. Why take a chance?

  1. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

    I'm sure some of the staff would feel uncomfortable serving such a group. But unsafe? Give me a break.

    Still, knowing how many leftists are, I wouldn't want to push the issue and eat there anyway because I don't like my food seasoned with other people's spit or who knows what else bodily fluids or secretions.

    But I can already tell that people here are going to try to conflate this with the Christian baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for same-sex couples.

    It is not the same.

    A Christian group's meeting and eating at a restaurant has no religious celebratory significance.

    The equivalent to this for the Christian baker would be if the baker refused to bake a birthday cake for somebody who was gay because they were gay.

    1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

      Yep, unsafe. Never know when a hate group is gonna cut loose with some high-velocity heavy metal poisoning....they've a considerable track record in that regard.

      1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

        Oh is that so joe? How do we know that you haven't just intentionally suggested in telegraph8ng doing that to some group? Got to be careful what you put in writing. Kind of reckless.

        That said, this is all about a specific group (this bunch who merely say they are Christians) operating on its own philosophy, not a religion-wide tribal position ("all Christians"). I know lots of Christians who believe that you actually follow christ, not self-styled or self-appointed interpreters of Christ.. and all that Christ actually said so far as we know that he said) was to do the "big two" in replacing "the Law": love God, love neighbor, period. To that extent this particular family group places itself outside what is "Christian." Bus this group may have zero right to relieve from religious exclusion... But they have to win at court to obtain it (in this case).

        1. Joe Stutler's Avatar Joe Stutler

          "Oh is that so joe? How do we know that you haven't just intentionally suggested in telegraph8ng doing that to some group? Got to be careful what you put in writing. Kind of reckless."

          Seriously? That's what you came up with‽ Well, I can see your coproencephaly has progressed for too much for you to hold rational conversation. May your suffering be brief.

    2. Matthew Mastrogiovanni's Avatar Matthew Mastrogiovanni

      @Rev. MichaelRS yes unsafe. Remember just about all the domestic terrorists in this country are white Christians (Proud Boys, The KKK, The Insurrections of Jan. 6th, Those that prosecuted "witches" in Salem (and elsewhere), etc...

    3. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

      Rev. MichaelRS,

      I disagree somewhat because "sexual orientation" should be included as a protected class just as much as religious based claims...that is the problem here

      The baker should not be forced to make a cake that he/or she has a conscientious objection with; however, under current Federal law the restaurant can't refuse service to a religious group.

      Example, My restaurant does not serve Jews"

      This is precisely what is at issue when someone says " They don't serve or provide services for Gays"

      This my friends in the slippery slope because when does "wedding cakes or web design turn into medical services, or corresponding first responders"

      However, if the restaurant owners have a conscientious or religious objection to christians then this becomes very complicated on where the line is and who draws it...

      Can a Jew turn down a Muslim's business?

      If a wedding designer can refuse Gay couples then why cant a private hospital do the same...?

      So, No the restaurant cannot refuse services, per se', provided that the restaurant is not acting out of conscientious or religious objection...

      Then it becomes much more complicated because why not...someone being turned away for being gay is different from someone being turned away because they decided to be a christian...

      People don't choose to be gay, they just are; however, an individual does choose which religion they become a part of...

      So, just like skin color, people cannot change skin color but someone can change their beliefs...Therefore, I think we will see much more of this because the "line" is being subjectively decided...Some find most christians today as offensive, hypocritical, bigots..

      So, should a privately owned restaurant be forced to serve religious bigots or Polyamorous cult members, or any other Ideology that the owner disagrees and the Supreme courts seems to be saying "Yes" on one hand, and "No"on the other?

      Either sexual orientation is a protected class or not....

      Does the Gay person's religious beliefs ever come into play? why not?

      A black, Mexican, or white christian should be turned away for being "gay"...but a religious straight person isn't..???

      Perhaps, a "Gay-christian" man or women should be the new moniker to avoid this foreseeable nonsense...

      Take care,

      Minister Wilson

      1. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

        With the baker thing you're missing the point.

        Going back to one of your examples: are you going to force an orthodox Jewish bakery to make Christmas cookies?

        The point is forcing someone to participate, on some level, in a celebration that diametrically opposed to their established religious beliefs.

        As I pointed out in my original comment, the Christian baker is not refusing to bake a birthday cake for a gay person because they are gay. They are refusing to participate in what they see is a sacrament of life, marriage, in a way that is outside of there deeply held religious beliefs.

        1. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

          Rev. MichaelRS, I appreciate you taking the time to respond...

          And if you believe I am missing the point, let me be clear...

          The baker should not be forced to make a cake that he/or she has a conscientious objection with; however, what type of society our we creating when “...deeply held religious beliefs” rule the day for everyone else?

          There are no such things as a christian baker, or a jewish bakery, or a christian web-designer, those attributes reside with the owner not the bakery itself. If you have ever filed for a corporation, LLC, or a private company, there are no religious designations for those entities.

          If a business provides services for the public, then a conscientious objection is all that can be raised regarding their customer or employee safety or something that violates their conscience.


          Baking a cake for a wedding is not participating in said wedding

          Taking pictures for a wedding is not being a part of the wedding

          Creating a website is not being a part of the website...


          Marriage is a legal contract, and no religion has exclusive rights to marriage...For example, a person might marry in a church but must go before a judge to divorce. Because churches have no authority to dissolve a marriage contract, only the states do.

          I would not force someone to make a Klu Klux Klan cake because that group represents hate and intolerance for others; being gay brings none of those connotations except for those profoundly diluted individuals who believe they are acting on “god’s” behalf...And you know it.

          So, let us be honest, gays are being discriminated against solely because of their sexual preferences and orientation...

          So, we are going backward, and soon it will be Black, Mexican, or Asian wedding cakes or hotel rooms again...

          Mainly due to religious dogma...

          Being gay is not a choice, but being a religious zealot is...

          Therefore, the restaurant should be able to raise a conscientious objection to groups or ideologies it disagrees with also...Just like bakers and web designers...

          That’s my point...

          Take care

          Minister Wilson

          1. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

            Well, as to one of your points, it's just meaningless wordplay when mentioning a Christian baker versus a baker who is a Christian.

            And whether you or I think that the cake maker is participating in the ceremony is irrelevant. If the provider of the service thinks that their lending their art and craft to such a ceremony considers it participation then that's where the lies.

            You're also conflating secular and non secular services when it comes to the religious objection. There is no long established religious dogma relating to web designing. In this case the service for the wedding cake was denied because of the man's good faith religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

            Quite a while ago the Colorado Baker gave an example if a gay person came in and wanted a birthday cake, that's no problem. Although short of some stereotypical outward signs I would have no idea how he would know they were gay. But the point is service is not being denied just because the person is gay without any established religious beliefs behind it.

            And yes while there is the Civil aspect of marriage, many people wish to be married, or divorced, in accordance with their faith. Again, whether you are I discount that faith is irrelevant.

            So yes I guess you could say, based on one's individual religion that in some cases gays are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. But in some faiths that sexual orientation is gross sin that is not in any way to be encouraged. So I'm not sure what your point is there by wanting somebody who holds those religious beliefs to basically put their seal of approval on such sin by, in this case, baking a cake in celebration of it.

            And to be clear, all of this is not necessarily my personal opinion. I'm just pointing out the other side.

            And so far the courts seem to have agreed.

            And there's no need for ridiculous hyperbole by bringing in discrimination against blacks and Mexicans and so on and so forth. That is just silly.

            Lastly I would say I don't know what the big deal is of having to get a cake from somebody who doesn't want to make you one. Just like attending a restaurant where the management and staff doesn't want you. If I forced either issue I would be worried about what was in my food or my cake.

            Somebody above made the point regarding irrational people on the right but you know as well as I do there's no shortage of irrational people on the left either. And it's not beyond reason that some foreign unauthorized material could end up in one's food if they went to a restaurant where their group was not welcome or wanted.

            Lastly I would say there must be some restaurant somewhere owned by a Christian person that would welcome that group. Just like I'm sure there is at least one gay baker and cake designer somewhere out there that would love to bake a cake for a same sex wedding.

            Because really the only thing all this hubbub has done is to give the Christian Baker and the Christian group publicity and mountains of support, both financial and moral, that they probably would not have received otherwise

            1. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

              Perhaps, and perhaps not...

              There are no religious for-profit entity designations, and if it is a “business,” it must keep its taxes and bank accounts separate from the owners...

              Please consider these questions because they encompass some of the generalized assumptions that concern me “from the other side,” as you put it...

              1.) How do you know the “baker” is acting in good faith? 2.) What are strongly held religious beliefs, and how do we measure those beliefs? 3.) Why are other firmly held non-verifiable beliefs somehow different from religious ones?

              According to you (or the “other side”), non-verifiable beliefs should be just as trustworthy as scientific facts and evidence...or any long-standing policies implemented for the betterment of a diverse society.

              There are no “hyphenated” christian, muslim, jewish, etc. American businesses, just business. And some owners may have a particular ideological viewpoint toward activities they deem “offensive”. Yet, the Federal government has imposed rules and regulations for organizations not to discriminate when dealing with the public;

              “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” (DOJ, 2022).

              Similarly, there are no “hyphenated” races of people such as Black-American, Mexican-American, Jewish-American, etc. we are all just Americans; however, there is only one race of people “human,” and these racial categorizations are social constructs.

              Those on the other side (as you put it), “acting in good faith,” does not seem, at present, to have any issue following social constructs based on race or color because these are physical characteristics that cannot be changed by the individual.

              So, denying services to gay Americans assumes that these individuals choose to be gay...However, if you are a straight man (cis-gendered), when did you decide to be a straight man?

              If you did choose to be straight, how did you overcome your own gay tendencies? So what makes (the other side) believe that gay people “chose” to be gay? Ignorance perhaps?

              Secondly, what is strongly held beliefs, and how are these beliefs measured?

              I have heard Christian after Christian claim that we are all sinners, so what makes some sin worse than others? Businesses don’t usually deny services to consumers based on their like-mindedness. I don’t have to be a Democrat to eat at a restaurant owned by a democrat. I can go to a public store owned by a white or Mexican and still receive service.

              But if I am gay, then somehow, this becomes intermingled with the owner’s ideological; and religious predispositions...

              So, racial constructs are okay, but non-violent, legal, sexual preferences or orientations trigger some prohibitive religious legal mechanism to receive public services or accommodations circumvents policies and regulations intended to better a diverse society.

              As you have already conceded,

              “So yes I guess you could say, based on one’s individual religion that in some cases gays are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation”

              And therein lies the problem...

              This segues into my last concern, how can you, the “other side”, or the courts, differentiate between hate, bigotry, racism, or just plain homophobic behaviors from a religious objection?

              The “other side” might think these stunts are cute, but it appears as political maneuvering to roll-back marriage equality by allowing religious theocracy to define a public contract.

              Take care,

              Minister Wilson

              1. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

                That's an extreme amount to unpack and WAY too much for a blog comment section on a subject that I only have mild interest in at best.

                I think a number of your questions could be answered if you would read the Court decisions in the matter that ended up being favorable to the baker.

                Also you are broadening the issue beyond denying a particular type of service for a particular reason.

                A gay person did not walk into a bakery and say, "I want a birthday cake" and, however the baker would know this, the baker did not say. "No, I'm not baking you a cake because I don't serve gay people."

                The issue is far more nuanced than that and that is what the court drilled out on.

                So, as I say, I would direct you to the decision of the Supreme Court to answer your questions. Because it has all already been argued and answered there.

                By the way, in case you're wondering, personally, I would bake the cake.

              2. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

                Rev. MichaelRS

                I appreciate your honesty, and I have read the case..

                And that is why I would not force someone to bake a cake that they had a conscientious objection with, as I have said repeatedly, because that goes both ways...

                However, the questions I raised were not answered by the courts because religion is usually considered a "good thing" and is a protected class...

                Yet, the idea of using that protected status to deny public accommodations or services greatly misses the point...and is offensive...

                I and others have a problem, with religion in the public sphere shaping policy when religion should remain personal or religious claims need to be proved empirically, plain and simple...

                The court drilled out an ideological religious decision not necessarily a legal or logical one...

                By the way, you keep saying the baker would bake a gay birthday cake or a birthday cake for a gay person, and this means nothing...Because how would he ever know a person was gay like you said...

                So, essentially as long as gays stay in the closet then its okay, well I share those exact same views about religion...

                Minister Wilson

              3. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

                Min. Wilson.

                Well, I have no idea how the baker would know that the person coming in requesting the birthday cake was gay. All I can tell you is in the interview I read, sometime ago now, that is what the baker said. He went on to say that he said plenty of gay customers over the years, but he did not elaborate beyond that.

                Can you explain what you mean by religious claims need to be proven empirically?

              4. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson


                If a person is making a religious claim, such as baking a wedding cake then they should also show were they have denied wedding cakes for other "morally offensive" or sinful behaviors...their bible disagrees with...

                For example, if Ex president Donald Trump asked that baker to bake a cake for some celebration or a wedding, he must also refuse Trump because he is a divorcee...

                Empirically proven: represents a basis in or reliance on information obtained through observation, experiment, or experience...

                Empirical laws are capable of being "verified or disproved" by observation or experiment...

                So in other words, individuals that raise religious objections should show a consistent pattern of conduct that supports those objections, whereas a conscientious objection may be based on an individual occurrence of some event or activity...

                Although all conscientious objectors take their position on the basis of conscience, they may have varying religious, philosophical, or political reasons for their beliefs...

                Teaching teenagers abstinence is not shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates, prayer is not shown to have a significant impact on social conditions, religious therapy has not been shown to"treat" gay people...

                Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, people that believe in a higher power must prove that a higher power exists...before implementing policies that effect society as a whole.

                Using religious believe as a reason to exclude certain members of society from goods or services must be shown to have positive impact for the betterment of society...

                For example, we as a society decided that individuals should not be discriminated against because of color, why? Probably because it undermines notions of fair play, and equal treatment..

                Denying services to American's who happen to be gay is no different than denying services to someone who happens to be black...IMO

                Take care

                Minister Wilson

              5. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

                Min. Wilson - Thank you for taking the time to reply. There's a lot to unpack there so pardon me if I respond in bullet points and jump around a little bit. Hopefully it will still be somewhat coherent.

                Doesn't the requirement for empirical evidence eliminate all world religions? Because I'm not aware of any religion in the world that is not faith-based. That's why people are asked what is there religious FAITH, not what is their religious FACT or evidence.

                And if one is to do that, eliminate religions based on the fact they do not have empirical evidence (of their God or miiracles or any other tenants of their faith) for their existence, then that is not going to leave all kinds of people gay, straight, black, white and so on and so forth, spiritually adrift.

                Because, as I'm sure you know, there are plenty of gay people that believe in and love Jesus who have determined that, for them, scriptures mean a certain thing and therefore, due to their beliefs in Jesus, they are going to heaven.

                And then who is it that will set the standard by which consistent objections are applied? Because a lot across the faith systems there some definite disparities in the way certain faith traditions are interpreted or observed.

                As to your example of Trump and divorce, the Catholic Church has views that far differently than does most Protestant denominations.

                But let's assume our baker is a devout Catholic. Potentially that would only preclude him from baking a cake for Trump in celebration of his divorce or it's anniversary.

                And from the viewpoint of certain faiths (not just conservative Christians) denying gay people the ability to marry, are not supporting the idea of those type of relationships, DOES have a positive impact on society as it is a means to discourage or tamp down on those type of relationships and keep them out of the mainstream.

                Not MY opinion mind you.

                "People believe in a higher power must prove that power exists...before implementing policies that affect society as a whole".

                My questions to that would be, who made that rule and to who's satisfaction do they have to prove it?

                America was founded, in part, based on our God given or Divine rights as part of it s political philosophy. Should we have had to undertake the empirical demonstration of God's existence before we declared our independence?

                I still think you're not willing to acknowledge that there is Nuance as to why certain people, based on their religious faith would deny certain services to people.

                It seems to me as if you're saying, again back to the specific case of the baker, that if the baker finds homosexuality morally objectionable he must therefore deny gay persons ALL services to be consistent. Not just those that, as far as he is concerned, have religious overtones that are counter to his faith.

                Lastly, please don't take my points as argumentative in a belligerent way. They're not meant to be that way at all. I'm just trying to gain clarity in our philosophical discussion here.

                Best to you and yours during this holiday season.

                Rev. Michael

              6. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

                Rev. Michael,

                I appreciate your response and taking the time to articulate your thoughts and feelings on the matter...For the sake of brevity, I will respond and expound on the specific points you raised...

                1. [Doesn’t the requirement for empirical evidence eliminate all world religions? ]

                Requiring empirical evidence does not eliminate an individual’s right to practice their faith; it reduces how much an individual’s faith can be used to affect other members of society. In some religions, honor killings, dismemberment, fasting, public whipping, or polyamorous marriages, to name a few, remain intrinsic aspects of their faith.

                However, as a society, we have rules and laws against some of these behaviors, despite their sincerely held religious significance.

                Accordingly, “...the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), held that the First Amendment does not protect Indian practitioners who use peyote in Indian religious ceremonies, and also raised uncertainty whether this religious practice would be protected under the compelling State interest standard...” (Legal Information Institute, 2022).

                States should not be compelled to administer or disseminate religious principles and doctrine within a “free” secular society.

                Those clamoring for prayer in public schools would probably not take kindly to the idea of prayer rugs or mandatory prayers twice a day for children who do not believe or practice as Muslims do.

                So, when discussing religious freedom in this country, we should understand that Christianity is the primary implication being referred to. Moreover, each religious and non-religious member of society has or should have equal standing.

                Therefore, I agree, as a faith-based practice, there really are no facts or evidence required for each member to believe what they want; however, if those beliefs are intended for public use through force of law, then facts and evidence ought to be the guiding standard for basing decisions that affect the public.

                For example,

                Jon Stewart’s Interview Excerpt with Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPmjNYt71fk)

                So, the goal is not to eliminate religion; it is to keep religion from replacing facts and evidence for basing decisions that go beyond an individual that may feel that some behaviors are sinful in nature or a direct affront to a “god”.


                Why is homosexuality wrong between consenting adults? What makes that behavior wrong for an individual should not affect the entire community, which might think and believe differently. What is the state’s compelling interest in not allowing Gays to marry?

                Additionally, if the gay couple seeking the wedding cake were Christians, can the baker still refuse services? Why religion is a protected class, so how does being gay overshadow the customer’s religious views? (just like the restaurant’s situation here)

                By the way;

                What does “spiritually adrift” mean? Does a spirit exist?

                You claimed;

                “America was founded, in part, based on our God-given or Divine rights as part of its political philosophy.”

                Really,? How do you or anyone else substantiate that? Especially in light of 250-plus years of slavery (owning other people as property), how is that God-given or divinely ordained?

                I have continually acknowledged from the start that individuals should be able to have a conscientious objection which should extend to the restaurant denying services to a Christian group...

                And I agree, in part, that if the baker were consistent, then he or she would not offer any services to gay people at all, but like you said, how would they know...? And I think the baker knows this would be a much more challenging approach. (Hence, the I would make a birthday cake comment) However, denying other “sinful” items could also show consistency if the objections are religiously based.

                Therefore, just like Blacks, do States have a compelling interest in allowing businesses to deny services to specific community members.
                And, like With Blacks, who ruled that blacks could not be discriminated against, and to whose satisfaction did we have to prove this?

                I would say, Ourselves...

                Happy Holidays to you and Yours

                Minister Wilson

              7. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

                Min. Wilson.

                Sorry for the delayed response. I was a bit under the weather and actually continue to be. So this missive will be short, addressing only two of your points.

                The United States of America had slavery for only 110 years. I say "only" in relation to the 250 you mentioned. As obviously one year or one month or one week would all be too long in that regard.

                Although the final nail in the coffin of slavery was not until December 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment, the march to the end of that great evil in America started as early as with the adoption of the United States Constitution 1789.

                There the often misconstrued and misused portion of Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution counted slaves as 3/5th a person FOR THE PURPOSE OF determining a state's representation in Congress.

                Contrary with today's race-bairts say, that was a very good thing . Because if slaves had been counted as a whole person for that purpose Congress would have been flooded with representatives from slave holding states.

                If that had happened the next major piece of legislation in 1808, banning the importation of new slaves to the United States would likely not have happened. And more States would have been admitted to the Union as slave states to up to the Civil War, if the Civil War even happened

                Anyway the whole premise of your statement or question in that regard totally ignores the fact that there were no shortage of good and Godly men in the country trying to end that practice for many decades leading up to that liittle kerfuffle known as the Civil War.

                And it was during that war that God, through his instruments of Generals Sherman & Grant and others, visited fire & brimstone upon the Confederacy for their sin of clinging to that institution.

                So a nation being founded in part ir inspired by Godly principles does not mean that everybody within that nation acts Godly. Which brings us to the other point; The nation being founded on God-given or Divine rights.

                For that I would direct you to the writings of the founders for the answer to the questions you have about that. The Declaration of Independence would be a good place to start.

                Although I doubt it would satisfy your need for empirical evidence, the fact of the matter is a number of the founders did very often refer to the Divine or God in their writings.

                So, whether it is true or not, that's what they believed and felt and was, in part, what motivated their actions.

                Unfortunately, although not an excuse, they were men of their time and acted in the best way they thought they could in those circumstances. In relation to that I leave you with the video below.


                As for me I am abed, probably for the next 16 hours and who knows how many days.


              8. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

                Rev. Michael,

                I hope you are feeling better...

                From 1619 to 1865 is approximately 246 years...Not to mention black codes, Jim Crow laws, redlining, and the enduring racial resentment towards other minorities...till present

                I can appreciate your romanticization of the Civil War; however, it appears significantly misguided on where the emphasis is placed.

                The Civil War was fought over slavery, yet not within the context of good-Godly men endeavoring to end the cruel institution due to some biblical or moral principles about the treatment of Black people...

                Because that idea would rest on the assumption that Blacks and Whites were or should be considered as “equals”...

                Moreover, the Christian bible makes no claims that “slavery” is evil because it condones the practice.

                Slavery as an institution and its expansion west into other states presented a problem for Free Labor

                “Some believed that slavery should be curtailed simply because the South had too much political authority, but on the other end of the spectrum were ardent abolitionists who believed that slavery was a moral evil. All of these divergent positions came together because many of them realized that this coalition was the best chance they had of any antislavery action taking place.”

                And if some believed that slavery was a “moral evil,” they did so despite the Christian bible that endorses owning other people as property...

                If you believe that A God directed Northern generals, that is your opinion, but how would you empirically prove such an assertion...?

                The founding father’s manner in which they wrote may be due to the time they lived...however what they wrote is more crucial;

                “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and [not opinions], I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

                They could have easily claimed that this is a Christian nation or that Christianity is the country’s official religion, which they did not do.

                So, like the video of Bill Mahr you shared, if anyone is using “presentism,” it is theists attempting to claim that this country is somehow a “Christian” nation...when the founders could have just plainly said so...

                We are, though, moving a little beyond the restaurant and whether they have a right to have a conscientious objection and deny services to groups claiming to be Christians...

                Get Well,

                Minister Wilson

        2. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

          The cake baker case is a red herring. It was never just about participating (like selling someone a $40 sheet cake) it was about the artistic reputation of the creator of uniquely branded commissioned works implying endorsement of a particular set of beliefs. Very much like the creative musical artists who don't want politicians coopting their songs to support beliefs that run counter to the artist's reputations.

          1. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

            @ P.E.N. - That too is a very valid point. One which I will steal for a future arguments 😉

          2. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

            Mr Nunis,

            I am sorry, but business owners are still legally obligated to serve interracial couples even if they disagree with marrying outside of one's own race...

            And, I don't think there are any "cakes" that have copyrights...

            So, I am not following your "red herring" examples....

            Take care,

            Minister Wilson

            1. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

              Why would you not address what I actually posted, instead of bearing that false witness? And whether you think so or not, creative works such as one of a kind expensive signature cakes, designer dresses, musical compositions, etc. (and the artistic reputations of the creators) are protected by both executive and judicial branches.

              1. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

                Mr Nunis,

                I am addressing what you posted;

                "The cake baker case is a red herring. It was never just about participating (like selling someone a $40 sheet cake) it was about the artistic reputation of the creator of uniquely branded commissioned works implying endorsement of a particular set of beliefs. Very much like the creative musical artists who don't want politicians coopting their songs to support beliefs that run counter to the artist's reputations."

                I have explained my view extensively in the post to Rev. MichaelRS...

                1.) I said that nobody should be forced to bake a cake that they have a conscientious objection with... 2.) I also explained in great detail why a restaurant should have the same freedom of expression to deny services to organizations or groups that identify as christian... 3.) You claimed that cake baker case was a "red herring"

                I disagree with that assertion;

                A "red herring" in rhetoric and argumentation, is a fallacy that is committed when someone deliberately tries to derail a discussion from the issue at hand to a new, unrelated topic.

                So essentially, your claiming that I am "bearing false witness" because denying services such as baking a cake for a gay couples wedding, is unrelated to a restaurant denying services to a christian group that the owners have a conscientious objection with...

                So,please, explain to us how these two things are "unrelated", I already have...explained why they are...

                Accordingly, designer dresses, musical compositions, photographs etc. can all be copyrighted signature cakes cannot...

                Therefore, a political campaign using copy-written music is not just about whether or not the composers endorse the candidate it is more about infringement and being paid to use the music, (permissions/consent)...

                Additionally, the next time you and your like-minded confederates claim that the gay couple should just move on to some other baker remember your comment;

                "...one of a kind expensive signature cakes..."

                Perhaps, this plainly explains why the couple wanted one...

                Also, if

                “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” (DOJ, 2022).

                Then why are business owners that serve the public allowed to use "religion" to discriminate?

                Because this has been and continues to be my contention the whole time...

                So holding religious beliefs as a protected class while allowing those "religious beliefs" to be used to discriminate against others is the epitome of "bearing false witness"...

                So in the future, please refrain from all the pearl clutching and misguided indignation...If you want to support your position then less emotion and more logic would be appreciated...

                Thank you

                Minister Wilson

    4. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

      so you feel that employees would be perfectly safe but the diners may not be and you're stating that employees would spit in the food, etc. and you know this because you were a server and did that to people you didn't like or approve of.

      1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

        @Rev. Dr. Father JJ I for one would not feel safe as a customer. You never know when a Christian in the name of God would pull out a gun and start shooting at the waitstaff for being someone THEY believe God doesn't like and THEY BELEIVE is a sinner.

        1. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

          exactly my concern...people who think they're saved are the ones I fear the most

          1. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

            You two are ridiculous.

          2. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

            @Rev. Dr. Father JJ Can't agree with you more.

      2. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

        No, I say they are likely to have their food spit in because I see how crazy leftist react when confronted with conservative values. I saw how they reacted in the Supreme Court's recent abortion ruling, both before and after the official ruling was handed down. And I hear the ridiculous lying talking points on mainstream media and talk shows.

        And then I saw the Nationwide riots after Trump was elected and the riots through 2020 and 2021.

        I don't dig extremists on either side, but proportionately the left is far more institutionalized and given a pass

        1. Martin L Stigleman's Avatar Martin L Stigleman

          "I see how crazy leftist react when confronted with conservative values"

          You mean, like how "The Left" have condemned those who's sexual orientation is different than theirs and forced them out of jobs, homes, schools, churches, and businesses? Are you referring to how those "crazy leftists" went all up in arms about people reading books to kids while they were wearing women's clothes?

          Oh, just in case you missed it, that "Supreme Court's recent abortion ruling" TOOK AWAY RIGHTS from women. Would you feel the same if the decision had been to mandate vasectomies' to all men? They are reversible...a women getting pregnant is not!

          "I saw the Nationwide riots after Trump was elected and the riots through 2020 and 2021" Did you sleep through the backlash of the Obama Election? It lasted all 8 years he was in office. There were almost daily marches and demonstrations across the Country. U was getting gas when a truck full of people can screaming down the street with a Confederate Flag waving and the occupants yelling "WHITE POWER" over and over again at 3 in the morning. I saw the mass of people, burning a stuffed dummy with a black face, hanging by a noose. There were no riots because tRump was elected...it was because his abuse of power and his nasty and hateful speeches.

          "the left is far more institutionalized and given a pass"

          REALLY?! Tell me...if a group of people wearing black robes and waving satanic symbols on flags had forced their way into the Nations Capitol, would you think police should have opened fire on them? Wouldn't you be screaming for them to be locked up? What about a group of cultists who have an armed standoff after capturing a Federal Office and holding hostages? Shouldn't they be taken down for their actions?

          You ascribe many things to "The Left" but refuse to see that Right Wingers have done so much worse and gotten away with it because they are "Good Christians".

          1. Minister Wilson's Avatar Minister Wilson

            Mr. Stigleman,

            You have hit the nail on the proverbial "head"....

            Rev. MichaelRS and others that believe and talk like he does think that there has been an ongoing "war on christmas"...

            They believe that christianity should be the law of the land..

            And are always willing to blame "Left-wing extremism" for "right-wing extremism" as some sort of response to the radicalized left...

            ANTIFA stands for anti-fascism, but now white christian fascist are the true patriots?

            CRT critical race theory is taught in colleges not in grade school, but terms like equality, diversity, and tolerance is considered as some "woke ideology" to make white children feel bad...

            Transgenderism is the new bogey man fueling hatred and division, because "god' don't like them...

            And striping away a women's right to choose by turning that decision over to states is a definite step backwards for bodily autonomy...because the unborn have equal rights??? "No one has the right to use someone's body without that person's consent(period).." (this includes zygotes, fetus, and

            This all taking place under the guise of "religious freedom" or "christian nationalism" , in a "Free, Non-theocratic, Country", mind you....

            Oh, don't forget the whole "true christian" latest fallacy where a self proclaimed christian is "not a real christian" after they do or say something that has wide-spread disapproval " Scot Man much...

            So, ya "Ye" is a perfect example...

            It would be a joke, but it is not funny...

            Good Job Sir, keep up the good work...

            Minister Wilson

  1. John P Maher's Avatar John P Maher


    1. David Cox's Avatar David Cox

      That's very mature....wow proves right there by your own actions what kind of person you are. This is the kind of hate that has kids nowadays killing people

      1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

        Oh can it Cox. The kids killing who have been killing other kids have been bullied bullies. People stood up against their weird bull and they snapped. Or they got entangled in their creepy uncle’s right wing politics. Or it’s grown men drunk on conspiracy doing the shooting. Projecting the war like nature of right wing Christians on those who are tired and rightly critical of Christian superstition is pathetic.

      2. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

        David Cox

        I know what I wrote and I don’t agree with your summation. I thank you for sharing your opinion. Be well.

    2. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

      John P. Maher, Everyone has a right to speak their opinion. YOU have a choice to read or not. Sounds like you probably shouldn’t read anymore.

  1. Minister Carlos Ricardo Walls's Avatar Minister Carlos Ricardo Walls

    That reeks of discrimination.Contact the ACLU.

    1. Tracie Holladay's Avatar Tracie Holladay

      The ACLU will not help them. They will never help Christians.

      1. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

        Public court record of the many times the ACLU has defended Christians is easy to look up.

    2. Tracie Holladay's Avatar Tracie Holladay

      They won't help Christians.

      1. Beth's Avatar Beth

        Sure, the ACLU helps Christians! They help anyone whose rights are systematically violated.

    3. Joachim Holister Rigor's Avatar Joachim Holister Rigor

      Comment removed by user.

  1. Stewart's Avatar Stewart

    Its basically their go to rubbish of Do as we tell you not as we do.

    They can hate , Ban , demonize, publicly shame and criminalize everyone they don't agree with but immediately cry from on high for shame they want to hold us to the same yardstick we used .

    1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth



    2. Beth's Avatar Beth

      Yes. They only stand for "the right kind" of hate. Hate projected onto them is not to be stood for.

      The other term for this is "double standard".

  1. Marius Gabriel Burja's Avatar Marius Gabriel Burja

    Ha ha ha! Jesus said there'd be days like this. Maybe everyone should prepare for the solar micronova. Those who are not prepared, will not see the future of peace and love after the apocalypse.

  1. pjm's Avatar pjm

    So, the same type of Christians who fought tooth and nail to back a baker who refused to sell a wedding cake based solely on the gender of the customers are now screaming bloody murder when THEY are refused service? This is exactly why Jesus called the hypocrites a "brood of vipers".

  1. Philip John Chandler's Avatar Philip John Chandler

    As matter of principle, I believe that individuals - and by extension, businesses owned by individuals - have a right to deal or not deal with anyone according to their own beliefs. The local law may or may not support such a view, but that is a separate issue. As a matter of common, human decency, however, banning people for their assumed beliefs, or on account of what they "may" say or do that "may" offend someone's sensibilities, is a slippery and dangerous slope, at the bottom of which is the kind of bigotry and hatred that enabled the Nazis to murder Jews and other minority groups with the passive collusion of otherwise civilized people.

  1. Rebecca Lynn Bieniek's Avatar Rebecca Lynn Bieniek

    If you serve the public then you serve all the public. If staff is concerned, they need to just deal with it because they are in a profession of service. If the group shoves their agenda, then that would be wrong. It would be wrong for both sides.

    1. Joachim Holister Rigor's Avatar Joachim Holister Rigor

      The group has publicly displayed their disdain for the LGBTQ+ community, And some of the employees are members of that community. I, as a business owner, would likely not serve a group of the KKK either, if some of my employees were black. This is the same thing.

  1. Randall Hall's Avatar Randall Hall

    If the baker doesn't have to bake the cake, the argument works in reverse.

  1. Kevin Reese Verkuil's Avatar Kevin Reese Verkuil

    I think every side is wrong. I am a Christian and have never agreed to the not baking a cake mentality of people. That in no way compromises my faith. As for the restaurant, they were wrong also. Sometimes people don’t agree with you. Get over it. Trying to get 100% agreement is never going to happen. As for feeling unsafe, give me a break. Plenty of leftist or progressives have committed violence in the name of their beliefs also. I think denying people services because of their beliefs is a very slippery and dangerous slope. With that everyone have a great day!

  1. Jose Antonio Miranda's Avatar Jose Antonio Miranda

    A civilized society requires individuals to respect each other regardless their beliefs, color, etc. In this case, a decision was made based on “potential events”. If the assumption that something might happen, actually happens when the group was dinning, the owner would have had the right to ask the group to leave. Since it was an assumption, the restaurant lost a unique opportunity to demonstrate tolerance and respect. Love and respect are two words that must be embedded in our actions.

    1. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

      No, a civilized society does not require respect where respect is not warranted. It requires forbearance of beliefs so long as said beliefs are not spoken about to the point that the person becomes an annoyance.

    2. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

      There are many behaviors that do not deserve respect, even when they wrap themselves in patriotism or religion.

  1. David L McHaley's Avatar David L McHaley

    Look, you can't discriminate against anyone because it might make your staff uncomfortable. If these people are going in to look for trouble and giving the staff a hard time because they are gay,that's a whole different thing. But you can't deny someone because of what they believe. Me being a Pastor, I don't agree with homosexuality, but I would never make anyone feel uncomfortable or go into someone's business and start preaching the gospel. There's a time and place .

    1. Joachim Holister Rigor's Avatar Joachim Holister Rigor

      If this were the only place to eat in the universe, which we all know isn't true, you might have a point. A business owner is not REQUIRED to serve everyone that enters. If they choose to lose the revenue, then that is their loss. But it is their choice to do so.

      1. Beth's Avatar Beth

        You might want to check the Public Accommodations Law, which requires all businesses serving the public - being supported by having everything from roads to utilities to emergency services support them. It limits the right of a business owner/manager from picking and choosing their customers.

  1. Erin A. Kelley's Avatar Erin A. Kelley

    The Christian bakery never refused service. They refused to use thier creative ability customized item for them. If the guys came in and wanted something out of the display case and were refused then YES I have an issue with that. BUT as an artist, I don't fell comfortable painting horror scenes or watching horror movies. So should someone be allowed to come to me and commission me to paint something I'm not comfortable with? If I put my paintings out for sale and someone came into my gallery and wanted to buy one and I refused them because they are gay that is Wrong. The restraint has a basic menu that is the same as a bakers display case or an artist gallery, so this is where I feel it is wrong what the restraint is doing. NO GLBTS has been denied BASIC goods and services, only customized. HUGE difference. Is this the war they want? It is highly unlikely Christian restraunt, or bakery or coffee shop will refuse a person walking in and ordering off the menu, just to retaliate...

    1. Rev. B's Avatar Rev. B

      Sounds like you are saying that LGBTQ+ individuals only deserve BASIC goods and services. Aren't you a peach?. And cooking isn't artistic? Perhaps the chef did not want to use his artistic cooking ability for this group. Are you saying he should have just thrown them a piece of bread and tell them that's all they can get without artistry?

  1. Tabitha's Avatar Tabitha

    Xtians keep claiming they have the right by their made up religion to discriminate against everyone else and force them to conform. Therefore the rest of us should have the right not to be forced to tolerate their bigoted nonsense, either

  1. Lionheart's Avatar Lionheart

    I wonder if anyone has ever opened any restaurants purely for secularists being as those that believe in all these religious cults are slowly moving away from being the majority? 🤔


    1. Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox's Avatar Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox

      Great point! Personally, the christian nationalist hate groups give what I see as the “true christians” a bad name and is a huge force in driving them away from religion. Christian nationalists are the biggest threat to our democracy.

    2. Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox's Avatar Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox

      Comment removed by user.

  1. Amante Tadique's Avatar Amante Tadique

    Its laughable that the staff claimed they were concerned for their safety. They were just discriminating as their lgbtq cult is fascist in their beliefs and have zero tolerance for others. Its obvious elsewhere from cancel culture and banning of everyone and anyone who voices their opinion. Im not religious at all btw. If the staff had did this to an lgbtq group the white house would have sent in the fbi as a hate crime event.

    1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

      Oh Can it, your hate is showing in the projections you’re spewing. People are just tired of religious bigots like yourself who play victim all day. Doesn’t it get tiring?

  1. Amante Tadique's Avatar Amante Tadique

    Looks like comments here are being shadow banned like the old twitter.

    1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      No Tadique, it's just that some of your comments are too far off base to be tolerated. Maybe you should try writing for a different publication that accepts such foolishness, such as The National Enquirer.

  1. Mary's Avatar Mary

    The title of this is very misleading and manipulative. They aren't denying chrisitans they are denying radical extreamists who can and have been terrorists killing, bombing innocent Americans and doctors. This isn't about religious discrimination these pro-birth people have thrown an entire country of women and unborn babies into Harm's way the "pro-life" are dictating, hilter like, terrorists. Hate groups are terrorists and you do not have to be a christian to be "pro-life" either.

  1. Lady Mutt Cat's Avatar Lady Mutt Cat

    Well said. The bigotry of fundie Christians simply does not have to be tolerated.

  1. Gureg Amun Ankh's Avatar Gureg Amun Ankh

    You who is with out sin cast the first stone,if you are truthful! And I don’t think no one on this planet can cast, human beings are so Hypocritical they have no clue what divine love is, how do we expect to get to the next level of existence with so much hate in your hearts, I’m and elder 68 yrs and American African and I see the hate from the 60’s all over again, hate because of who you are and what you look like, these are devils with this kind of thinking read revelations chapter 18:2-3 we are living in the time of revelation, we as humanity better wake up, we will be judged by way of our sin not for them what you think is the start of sin.

  1. Bishop William Dusenberry, DD's Avatar Bishop William Dusenberry, DD

    The question (issue) that is never asked, so therefore never answered — remains: Whenever a “real” (one who actually takes this stuff seriously) “Are Roman Catholic vegetarians able to receive Holy Communion (because, miraculously, via transubstantiation, an actual part of Jesus becomes the wafer, that believing Catholics eat — whenever they participate in what thy call Holy Communion.

    Some Catholic kids call this “swallowing the leader.”

    But, nevertheless, to avoid being excommunicated, all Catholics are required to partake in Holy communion — vegetarianism be damned.

    And restaurants that prepare meals for Roman Catholics on meatless Friday’s (and, often on Wednesdays) have difficulty finding Catholic priests, qualified to de-meat — actual meat, so that it meets the Christian God’s mandate to participate in eating part of his son, so that every Catholic in good standing will spend eternity, worshipping the Christian God above all the other Gods.

    Bishop Bill from Broken Arrow. DD, Ph.D — and twice sainted.

    1. Pastor Jody S.'s Avatar Pastor Jody S.

      As an old Catholic gal, I can address a couple of your concerns. While it's true that, through the grace of transubstantiation, the host vessel - bread OR wine - does "become" the body and blood of Jesus, it' s not going to become a raw steak or human blood. Think of it as the spiritual essence - Body and BLood, that does become present. Not in a symbolic sense, but actually there. It's like your soul - your spirit - is present in your body. this is known as Mystagogy. Literally, the study of the mystical, or the Unseen Realm.

      So, not a problem for a vegetarian - chew and swallow away. Or slug down the wine.

      Now, I never heard anyone saying "swallow the leader" when I was growing up. But, then again, if they are kids, then as a former elementary school teacher, I can testify that, well, kids are goofy, and say the darndest things!

      I do know for a fact that the only requirement in the Catholic Catechism is that you receive communion, once a year. You will not be excommunicated.

      And to circle around to this article - God is not "leftist" or "conservative". God is God - above all of our political beliefs.

      God is Love - and God loves ALL of us. And that includes the LGBTQ+ community.

    2. David Cox's Avatar David Cox

      The bible says none of that, catholics teach that. No where in the bible does it say that it actually becomes. All Jesus said do this in remembrance of what I have done. His body what beat very badly for our sins by his stripes we are healed...by his blood the new covenant was made by his blood we have been forgiven...Jesus is saying remember what I have done for you

      1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

        According to the bible, Jesus said and did a lot of silly things, that shouldn't be paid any attention to.

    3. Rev. Jean-Anasthase's Avatar Rev. Jean-Anasthase


  1. Elvin St. James's Avatar Elvin St. James

    That's the way of the world today. Chrisianity has commited certain atrocities that the secular world will not forget or forgive. Religion has developed a stigma of being better than because of it. Establisments are right for refusing christian groups. First of all, if a group of people want to eat somewhere together, why announce what "group" you belong to? Meet, Eat and Leave! We Christians are not special in the world anymore. (sad)

    1. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

      No, not "Christian groups." THIS (so called) Christian groups. This one particular, SPECIFICALLY, ACTIVIST group. Big difference.

  1. Nicholas J Page's Avatar Nicholas J Page

    Christian groups unsafe now that is discrimination as a Christian myself.The restraunt owners will lose money and lose other people/groups who would want to eat there .The whole thing is laughable if it was funny.Its not.

    1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

      @Nicholas J Page You prediction of the owners losing money and other people not wanting to eat there is completely wrong. After the owners stood-up to the Christians for their hate speech and intolerance the restaurant has a lot more business. God must be rewarding the restaurant owners for "doing the right thing". I suspect we will see more restaurant owners turning away Christian groups and also see an increase in business. Why do Christians spread so much hate?

      1. David Cox's Avatar David Cox

        What are you going to do when God ask you how come you hate him....if fake Christians is the reason you don't believe. There is a lot of fake people who say they believe this or that. But a true believer cares for people and show them what God's words says that we all can be saved. God has given us a way but to many people think they are smarter than God they don't believe in the bible but they want to twist the words and try to quote it like Satan did from the beginning and also with Jesus

        1. Robert James Ruhnke's Avatar Robert James Ruhnke

          Mr. cox, that’s quite a paragraph of emotional blackmail and manipulation. The sheer hubris alone is sad. Again. Just because people believe differently than you doesn’t mean they hate God. Doesn’t mean they think they’re smarter than god. It’s amazing how non Christians don’t give Satan the time of day and don’t give him power. But you right wing Christians love invoking him at every time. Almost like you’re the ones unwittingly doing his bidding. Fascinating.

        2. Amber Fry's Avatar Amber Fry

          Problem is this doesn't have anything to do with loving or hating any god, but loving or hating people we all share this world with. It's about putting way too much time segregating and hating on people simply for being different or believing different. That is so far from what Crist taught that it has become ridiculous to even have this conversation.

        3. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

          @David Cox It's been my experience anyone who believes in God or Gods like them. Why would you believe and worship a God you hate.

          David, what makes you so sure God would ask someone why they hate God? One does not have to be a true believer to care about others.

          I have found many Christians don't believe in the Bible. Do you believe what the Bible has to say? If so, would you please so kind as to explain to me the meaning of Ezekiel 23:20?

          Thank you

    2. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      Nicholas, there are far fewer Christians in this world than you and other Christians have been mislead to believe. And a lot of non Christians would be very happy to eat in a place that ran off such evil people .

  1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

    Anyone who believes in God, Jesus our Savior and the Holy Spirit is a Christian. Christians claim they love everyone and everyone is welcome to where they be. I’m not reading here that this restaurant is Christian based, unless I read wrong. Their behavior is not Christian based. The owners of this establishment are for people who are attracted to the same sex as themself, they believe they were put in the wrong body and more. I, being a Christian respect everyone’s belief, and I do not discriminate against anyone. Only enemies of my country. Not the people who are the same race as our enemy. If you have done no harm to me or the people I love, you are welcomed around me. In the Bible it says to love your enemies as you love your friends and family. The people working in this restaurant needs to buck-up and accept all who visit unless it is the individual who are hurting them, not everyone of their race or even the establishment they visit. If that woman or man did not hurt them then the people who are having issues is having issues. The restaurant owners should have a policy in their restaurant saying we serve everyone here and if you cannot accept any of our customers then I cannot hire you or serve you. I think the restaurant is wrong. When you have a business that is for the public at hand and are welcomed, well, everyone should be, no matter their staff having an issue because you should have that policy as I already stated. If the individual(s) did harm to the establishment in the past and were told they were not allowed to be there, that is the restaurants perogatove and understandable, but not allowing a whole family or a race or a place of business that matches your own. All should be welcomed to your establishment and the employee needs to suck it up. It is feeling like when I was a child and I would see signs “for colored only” or no colored allowed. They had set signs that they had established for their business and that was their right even though it was so so wrong. I remember asking my mother what does that mean, colored. Does it mean because someone has paint or crayons on them? That was how my little mind was trying to understand. When my mother told me that anyone who doesn’t have white skin cannot do anything more than what the sign is telling them. I asked to go in that store. I wanted to see if there were colored people in there and I wanted to see where they shopped. I wanted to go in that area. Then I asked her, what do you mean white skin? I don’t know anyone with white skin. I knew my skin wasn’t white. It was the color of a peach and sometimes darker from being in the sun. I said who has white skin? She told me we are the people who have white skin. But we aren’t white. She had a hard time with this. This young child not understanding why we are called white when we aren’t white. She happens to see our neighbor walking her dog and she was a Negro. I knew her. She came to our house for visits and we went to her house. I have friends in school who has skin like hers. My Mom told her I was learning to read and I was asking legitimate questions but she was struggling answering me. She didn’t want me to be a racist or have prejudice in me. So the lady backed my Mom up. I told her but I’m colored too. This lady had a beautiful smile. I can still see her. I’m 66 yrs old and I was 6 yrs old asking these questions and I was insistent that I’m colored too. She said to me, you are right. You do have a beautiful color skin. It’s like a peach isn’t it? I told Mommy that, I said. My Mom and her giggled. She said the stores and other places who say anything about the colored, we don’t shop there unless we need to. Don’t worry yourself. In our world they call your peachy skin white. I didn’t settle for that. I had negro and Spanish friends in school and I told them what I learned in the playground. They were all dark, I wasn’t. I told them I have colored skin too. They agreed I wasn’t white but I was close. They didn’t care anymore than me. We were 6 yrs old. We liked who we liked and it upset me to see that behavior. This brought me back to those days. Before that I never paid attention to someone who had darker skin. I remember asking my friend if her darkness rubbed off. I thought she was dirty. I was 5. She said no and we played after that. This place of business here is discriminating like the stores I saw as a little girl. Instead of the colored are not allowed, you are saying people who believe differently are not allowed yet you let people who belive different, work for you. This is the most idiotic story I have read to date. Shame on the owners of that restaurant. You run a business for the public to shop there, buying food to eat is shopping. You allow that. It that person believes different from me, she can’t come in? I wouldn’t waist my money suing you but you betcha I’m going to spread the news that you are racist and not to go there. Shame on you. ~

    1. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

      seriously consider breaking that wall of text down into readable paragraphs

      1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

        Rev Dr Father JJ The app does not let you put in paragraphs. I tried. A piece of paper put under the sentence you are reading will keep you on course. Be well and Be safe…

        1. Michael Graham Sullivan's Avatar Michael Graham Sullivan

          RE: Rev DF JJ - "readable paragraphs" - He's just saying there's too much packed into your post. Try to be more succinct and on topic.

          1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

            I'm a talker and it goes to the finger tips as well. I probably cut out a lot of words that are not needed. I am told by the people who love me that I say more than necessary and write more than necessary. It's hard to reduce and I admit I didn't this time around.

            Reason for my behavior when talking or writing is I have inherited this awful curse from my Father. When my brother died and he called to tell me, the emotions I was having from his words to delight, to tears are ready, to delight...I asked my father, "Daddy! Please, just tell me. Is Michael still with us or not? My emotions are dancing here." He then told me he was gone. Reason I told you this story because I get what you are all saying to me. My future writing will be reduced I hope.

            Oh yeah, 2nd reason....I believe I feel the need for you to hear me. When I was young I had things to say and no one wanted to hear me nor talk to me about what I wanted to share. So I would repeat, repeat, etc. It carries through to me today. I do have to read and delete words that aren't necessary.

            Critique accepted as a kind advice.

            1. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

              and yet...paragraphs.

              funny how that works

              ain't it?

            2. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

              I often write numerous drafts of letters I write to people, until they're concise, and to the point.

    2. Rev Mark D's Avatar Rev Mark D

      Just because the people of this restaurant "need to" doesn't mean they HAVE to. By your own stated standard. End of story right there.

      1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

        Rev Marc D You talking to me or another person? It has you under my post not with my post. 🤷🏼‍♀️

    3. Charles Leroy Good II's Avatar Charles Leroy Good II

      Your rambling reply hit the point that Jesus loves. However, you fail to recognize that this Christian group hates gays and families who get abortions. This Christian group was banned for their hate, not the fact they were Christians. So by your premise, you need to boycott this Christian group for their hate of others, and love and accept gays and the families that had to endure an abortion; just like how you love and accept your friends of "color".

      1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

        No, not boycott. I don't see the reason for that step. I see where two different belief systems are clashing. It's sad.

    4. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

      I didn’t ‘waist’ my time reading this.

      1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

        Dr Zerpersande The glory of living in the USA, we can choose what we want to do. That’s your choice. You aren’t hurting my feelings.

        1. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

          That’s the glory of the US? I live in Japan and the same rights exist, Ditto in the U.K., Germany, France, Canada, Australia, etc, etc. It would be easier to name the few countries that do NOT have that ‘glory’. Gotta’ love that brand of freedumb that the US has though.

      2. Stephen D. Atchley's Avatar Stephen D. Atchley

        Comment removed by user.

      3. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

        @Atchley No, I didn’t waste my time commenting. Firstly, if I had then the conjugation you used should have been ‘waisted’. Secondly, were you still ‘smh’ when you realized your error? Thirdly, it became obvious that the author was a Christian through both the spelling error and the length of the post. Just thumbing my nose at ignorance. That’s never a ‘waist’ of time. Idiocy annoys me.

        1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

          No need for insults. I didn't insult you. I was kind while you put me down. The glory we have the right to say what we want. Common courtesy should be applied, unless I attacked you and I did not, it is evident.

          You have a choice, try being kind along with your right to speak and write. If you find that I was mean to you or insulted you, please show me so I can apologize.

  1. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

    Oops, lost your reservation. Sue me.

    1. Rev. Elizabeth's Avatar Rev. Elizabeth

      Dr Zeroersande Are you talking to me about losing a reservation? If you are, I’m not suing anyone and it doesn’t hurt me that you lost anything that is mine. I wish you well.

      1. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

        Nope, talking about the lost reservations that I would have as a restaurant owner when obnoxious religious twits wanted service.

  1. Rev. Jean-Anasthase's Avatar Rev. Jean-Anasthase

    Do you go to a restaurant to evangelize and force employee, staff and owner to baptism, or do you go there to eat ? Are Christians crusaders ? Did they show a letter from god to baptism or to kill faith enemy ?

    This is not about refusing a Christian to eat, it's about refuse a fight to be.

    And what about eating food made by a LGBTQ+ if they are Christian ? Is it a good practice to give money from they're members to this particular restaurant ?

    Please stay in line with convictions. Faith is not about fighting. You don't like LGBTQ+ ? Don't commerce with them, and vice-versa. Let each people live in peace. Jesus did not fight.

    John 8:10

    10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “LGBTQ+, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

    1. Stewart Newall's Avatar Stewart Newall

      No everyone entitled to celebrate there own beliefs and no be out by different religions 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🙏God bless everyone what ever you’re believes are. have a lovely Christmas 🎄

  1. Donald Michael Woodward's Avatar Donald Michael Woodward

    if the regular cutomers to the restaurant are uncomfortable then yes, anyone who is making the regular customers uncomfortable should be banned. you have to keep your regulars happy or you won't make any profit. it is capitalism not politics.

  1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

    It sounds like you're saying that before Jesus straightened up he was gay. Or maybe he thought if he told her all that it would turn her on, and she'd gladly give him some.

  1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

    If it was up to me I would have let them stay, and would have thrown food at them, whenever they weren't looking. I also would have encouraged others to do the same. I bet they never would have wanted to come back.

  1. Merlin's Avatar Merlin

    If it's a private business, they have have the constitutional right to discriminate.

    1. Beth's Avatar Beth

      Nope. Not if they want to stay in business. It's called Public Accommodation Laws.

      If you want to discriminate, don't hold yourself out as a business. No one has a right to a business. It's a privilege conferred by the government, who can also revoke it.

      1. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

        Laws which are very limited in their focus.

      2. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

        @Beth Reconsider your answer. Some business are required by law to discriminate, as in bars and sex stores. Other can discriminate based on gender, as in women's and men's clubs.

        Businesses do have a constitutional right to refuse service to anyone, especially if they are making a scene or disrupting service to other customers in their business. However, there are limits to the refusal.

        Public accommodation laws are at the state level. And yes there ARE states with NO public accommodation laws.

  1. Herbert Moore's Avatar Herbert Moore

    Love every one not hate anybody and the world will de fine. Rev Herbert Moore

    1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      If you can't have the one you want honey, love the one you're with, love the one you're with, love the one you're with!

  1. Herbert Moore's Avatar Herbert Moore

    Love every one hate no one and the world will be fine Rev Herbert Moore

  1. Kathleen Jane Antrim's Avatar Kathleen Jane Antrim

    Put the faith part aside. If the employer felt there was a chance their employees would not feel safe or comfortable with these customers then by all means cancel their reservation! But I do have some questions. Were there problems (either at this restaurant or elsewhere) in the past with this group? Have there been threats? I could go on and on, but in my mind, regardless of religion, political beliefs, etc. if the employer was doing this for the safety of the employees, they are correct in doing so.

  1. Kenneth Dean Haney's Avatar Kenneth Dean Haney

    I don’t know if the restaurant had one but I have seen a little sign that states.”We reserve the right to deny service to anyone.” Kinda speaks for itself.

  1. Govannon Thunorwulf's Avatar Govannon Thunorwulf

    I know that two wrongs do not make a right, but being on the receiving end of discrimination for most of my life, what goes around comes around. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. I have been denied everything one can think of because of my beliefs. I even had move out of my hometown and disconnect from the rest of my family.

  1. Charles Leroy Good II's Avatar Charles Leroy Good II

    Your theory depends on the majority to act, which normally doesn't happen in most cases. This is why there are mechanisms and protections to safeguard minority rights and interests.

  1. Timothy Albaugh's Avatar Timothy Albaugh

    Your either with Jesus the son of GOD or you are against him. Sorry the BIBLE leaves no middle ground.

    Pagans have and will continue their fight to work their evil. Praise the LORD Jesus is coming soon.

    1. Joachim Holister Rigor's Avatar Joachim Holister Rigor

      You do realize, Sir, that this church does recognize those of the Wiccan religion.

      The Christian God also preached tolerance, and an attempt to understand those with which we might disagree. I would also point out that although Pagans and Neo-Pagans are not Christians, they are not worshipers of the Christian's Satan either.

      So to publicly state that they are evil, is disingenuous, and against the teaching of tolerance.

    2. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

      you understand that the bible is only valid for the people that believe in it. what makes you think anyone who does not believe the bible has to adhere to any of the nonsense within? oh...yes, chrs chnz, unable to accept that others have different beliefs, chrs chnz, the intolerant religion

    3. Lionheart's Avatar Lionheart

      Any new dates yet on when you think he'll be arriving? Please could you ask him to first stop off at Children's Hospitals and get them well? Why do I think this is never going to happen🤔. Did he ever really exist in the first place? I guess we'll never know. 🤷🏼

      I think I'll start praising your lord when he gets his finger out of his (you know where) and starts doing something praiseworthy, along with his dad. It's way over due.


  1. Lady Celynia's Avatar Lady Celynia

    Preach the Gospel always and if necessary, use words. - attributed to St. Francis. I think people of all religions have forgotten these valuable and time honored words. Just substitute Gospel for which ever text you believe in.

  1. Alejandro Medina de Wit's Avatar Alejandro Medina de Wit

    Serves them well! Good for the restaurant; If I was the owner, I'll kick them out, along with any stray Karen around...

  1. Hadmels Rafmil De Frias's Avatar Hadmels Rafmil De Frias

    Hello everyone, from what I understand the issue was not that they were Christians, but that it was a hate group organization which like many others mask themselves under the mantle of religious group to promote hate. The conversation is not so much about faith, but about the limits many faith groups are placing on love and accepting thy neighbor. I support the restaurant and see it from the perspective that you cannot promote hate and expect all to accept your hate and discrimination. Also, I agree that if you as a “Christian business owner” have the right to refuse service to those who do not conform to the closed minded view of the world that you have, then the rest of the world have the same exact right.

  1. Hadmels Rafmil De Frias's Avatar Hadmels Rafmil De Frias

    Hello everyone, from what I understand the issue was not that they were Christians, but that it was a hate group organization which like many others mask themselves under the mantle of religious group to promote hate. The conversation is not so much about faith, but about the limits many faith groups are placing on love and accepting thy neighbor. I support the restaurant and see it from the perspective that you cannot promote hate and expect all to accept your hate and discrimination. Also, I agree that if you as a “Christian business owner” have the right to refuse service to those who do not conform to the closed minded view of the world that you have, then the rest of the world have the same exact right.

  1. Ronald E Roberts's Avatar Ronald E Roberts

    If I said no gay people allowed, I would be sued. If I said Christians only I would be sued. As it turns out, I do not respect gay people or abortion.

    1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      And as it turns out Ronnie, they don't respect you iether. So, there!

  1. Brandon's Avatar Brandon

    Look I believe in freedom and above all the right for whatever choice you make, at the end of the day no matter what faith, religion, or belief you hold, Our creator will be the ultimate judge and the punishment shall fit what he holds the actions accountable for. So with that we should allow people to say and feel they way their business should operate BUT if we all loved instead of hated and embraced with open arms and kept our personal lives private no matter what your choice of lifestyle you choose then we could all get back to healing a world in the way intended. NOONE HAS A RIGHT TO JUDGE AS GOD THE CREATOR IS THE ONLY JUST AND ULTIMATE JUDGE. SO INSTEAD OF CHRISTIANS HATING OTHER RELIGIONS AND THEN HATING BACK AND STRAIGHT AND GAY JUST LOVE AND HELP ONE ANOTHER. REMEMBER WHEN WE RETURN TO THE SPIRIT FORM OR ENERGY FORM WE DONT HAVE MALE AND FEMALE PARTS WE ARE SEXLESS. YOUR SOUL CANT HELP WHO IT LOVES AND WANTS TO BE WITH. SO IF GOD IS UNIVERSAL LOVE THEN WE CAN TO. SO PLEASE THIS WORLD IS HEADED DARKER AND DARKER LETS SPEAD THE LIGHT AND LOVE TO HELP ALL THE ONES LOST AND FOR THOSE THAT ARE SIMPLY UNEDUCATED OR MISINFORMED THEN LETS HELP EDUCATE WITH LOVE AND POSITIVENESS AND LET THE CREATOR BE OUR JUDGEMENT. PLEASE LETS BEGIN TO HEAL OUR YOUTH THEY ARE THE MOST LOST AS THE KILLINGS MORE FREQUENT WITH YOUNGER SHOOTERS. KIDS 10 AND 11 NOW KILLING, I SAY LAY DOWN THE HATE AND LETS LOVE AND HEAL AND BEGIN TO FIND HAPPINESS AGAIN.

  1. James Weeder's Avatar James Weeder

    It is a double edged swor, people want service and businesses want to refuse. You cannot have it one way and not the other. If I ran a business I would not give a rats A** what their beliefs were or color was. The only thing is their money because that is what keeps the doors open.

  1. Theodore Conrad Desmarais's Avatar Theodore Conrad Desmarais

    Public business must be non judgmental, period. Private is totally different department where personal beliefs and religious law etc is practiced. Just as cake makers turn away LGBT etc is wrong so is turning away anti abortion activists. It is Not that public business is condoning or not.

  1. Robert Strang's Avatar Robert Strang

    I'll allow it.

  1. Thomas A. Follis's Avatar Thomas A. Follis

    It was made OK to sue Christian bakers over refusing to bake a cake for a same sex couple. Make it ok for the Christian group to sue this establishment. I’m ok with that.

    1. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

      The Masterpiece Cake Shop baker was originally the one who sued to the US Supreme Court...

  1. James Bullard's Avatar James Bullard

    Hatred of others is not "a Christian belief".

    1. Rev. B's Avatar Rev. B

      Ooh! No true Scotsman! I caught one.

  1. Lynne Killenbeck's Avatar Lynne Killenbeck

    With this time of year and so many religions celebrating we need to stop with the hate we need to stop picking out this group that group we are all God’s children we need to look at the world through the eyes of children and not see the hate, the distain, the color, the religion be who you wanna be celebrate how you wanna celebrate and stop looking for hate

  1. William Joseph Moczan's Avatar William Joseph Moczan

    I guess you ALL can prove creation wrong! NOT!! -Minister Moczan

    1. Tom's Avatar Tom

      I mean there's a ton of scientific evidence to support evolution that disproves creation theory. There's scientific evidence that the Earth is way older than 6000 years as the Bible claims. There's significantly more evidence supporting non-creation theory than evidence to support creation.

      1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

        Just like there is scientific evidence to prove that evolution and the big bang theory is myth. Newton's 1st law clearly shows the big bang theory is a lie. "1st Law – An object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion at constant velocity, unless acted upon by an outside force" so for the big bang theory to be correct, what was the outside force that caused the explosion when so called scientists say there was nothing there to cause the explosion. Sounds like double speak to me. Am I saying it was a deity? Nope. I am saying that its a lie.

        And as for evolution...there are thousands of things that prove this is also a lie. Piltdown Man, the pepper moth, darwins finches, Archaeopteryx, birds descended from Dinosaurs just to name a few. Even Berkley says that evolution is not a proved fact as it is not testable, which makes it a theory. And if man descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Shouldnt all of them have evolved into humanoids by now? And the star HD 140283 is a subgiant star with an estimated age of 14.46 billion years. That might raise an eyebrow or two for those of you who remember that the age of the universe is claimed to be estimated as 13.77 billion years.

        Now if the so called experts cant even get their stories straight, why should anyone believe them?

  1. Paul Edward Nunis's Avatar Paul Edward Nunis

    The notion that there is a religious 'right' to make other people feel unsafe, or to use a private business in a way that infringes upon staff or other customer's ease of mind, rings false.

  1. Deborah Jean Howard's Avatar Deborah Jean Howard

    I do not seek, any restaurant, or any public place. Should banned people from their facility because of their religious belief, their sexual preference or what political things they believe in. Pretty soon it’s gonna be segregating people for everything and it needs to stop.

  1. Eric Paul Freischlag II's Avatar Eric Paul Freischlag II

    While I agree some are seemingly applying a double standard, i.e., the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for the gay wedding, I am disgusted by some of the "reverends" that are commenting such hate filled replies. This concerns me that this organization allows this type of language to occur. As far as the original question, if they don't want you there just support another restaurant and move on. Forcing your beliefs on someone is wrong regardless of which side you're from.

  1. Alexzandra Kolasa's Avatar Alexzandra Kolasa

    I think this is absolutely nuts. Not everyone is going to share the same views. It's common sense. But to discriminate for ones beliefs they really have no right to do so or they wouldn't have any customers to begin with. These people are wrong and I hope the restraunt realizes that not everyone will have the same view as her. It's It's freedom of speech and they should be able to talk about it if your a restraunt owner you make a smirk and move past it. It's not your business.

  1. Michael Ernest Brousseau's Avatar Michael Ernest Brousseau

    Now this is my opinion how I see this, you're in the Hospitably business there for be that first thing or rethink your type of work that fits your opinion's. In dealing with anyone you should be hospitable regardless; of anything it must be put aside our predigests and breath in and say to yourself is it in my faith to turn away the hungry? and we to judge our brothers and sisters, no judgment here just an opinion of my own. I myself say, come on in my friend sit coffees anyone? If someone did that, I must say oh my. & I am shocked I must think?

  1. Stanley Alan Marchand's Avatar Stanley Alan Marchand

    Does this restaurant serve Muslims.

  1. Ryan S Romanek's Avatar Ryan S Romanek

    I think this whole thing is crazy, either way, it has done it's job, by creating slander on both sides. All this actually makes for is good news and all the papers, stations and internet , eat what we feed them.

  1. Ms. Jackie 's Avatar Ms. Jackie

    If a person or group, religious or otherwise, wants to allow or disallow service to another it shouldn’t matter their belief. Why should just the believers have their rights protected? Does the non believer not have the same rights to protection as the believer? Are their non belief views any less valid than those who believe? Are those who believe the only ones entitled to protection?

    If a business is allowed to refuse business based on their beliefs, shouldn’t the business that doesn’t believe enjoy the same protection of choice?

    Can a business choose to only do business with those who believe as they do? It is their business, if they wish not to enjoy more prosperity by being inclusive, is that not their right?

    Can a non believing business only do business with other non believers? Do they have the right to refuse business with ANY believing group regardless of whether it is Christian or Muslim or Jewish? How about any of the other thousands of belief systems?

    If a person or group doesn’t like what a business believes, do they not have the right to choose not to patronize that business? It is up to them to decide who they will do business with.

    So, if a business doesn’t like what a person or group believes, or doesn’t believe, should it not be up to them to determine who they do or do not conduct business with? It is after all, their business.

    And speaking of beliefs in the first place…why do we believe what we believe? Looking back over the history of humankind in totality, religion, religious/spiritual belief systems are fairly geo-dependent. Just as language has traditionally been geo-dependent. If you grow up in one country, you tend to speak the language of that country.

    Religion tends to follow a similar pattern. Countries tend to foster a particular religion or belief going back to their origins. But here’s the thing…how do you know that your particular belief system is the right one? Because that’s what you were taught and told?

    Christians believe that Christianity is the one true religion. Muslims believe Islam is the one true religion and so on and so on. But, how can you know for sure? There are over 4,000 religions, belief systems and spirituality followings. They can’t all be right…can they? So what makes you think that you are believing in the right one…or any one at all?

    It would seem to me that we should all be working to be the best human beings we can be and stop worrying and judging others because of what they believe or don't believe. I think the world would be a much better place. But hey, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong. And, I, am, outta here! (My Dennis Miller impersonation).

  1. Tammy S Gardner's Avatar Tammy S Gardner

    From the Bible, Jesus ate with sinners of all kinds including tax collectors. He saved the woman who was being stoned for adultery. It does say the sin of homosexuality is offensive to him but nowhere dos it command anyone to harm the person caught in the sin. He did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the violence (and hatred) that was in them. You have to read the whole context not just pick out a few verses you like to support the cause. Also if one believes in Jesus and reads the Bible it is clear within the text itself that he wants people to freely choose to follow him. I have not found the verses that say that anyone must be forced to follow him and to share in all the same beliefs as someone else. Two people can read the Bible and gget different views out of it. That is why there are so many different ideas out there. Reading the whole context I understand that he wants everyone to hear the word and freely and willingly choose to either follow him or not. Nothing says anyone should bee compelled to follow him by force. I have been in many places where ministers of God give a sermon that shows hatred for specific groups like divorcees, gay, adulterers and others. Jesus welcomed them. Who knows if maybe the unconditional love bestowed on them by others may compel them to freely and willingly choose to follow Jesus. God hates divorce too but he himself divorced himself from Israel Jeremiah 3:8. So do we too then condemn him as well. He told the woman who was being stoned Go and sin no more. He did not entice the crowd to join him in stoning her or harass her or discriminate against her. Many so called rules of God, are really rules of man trying to enforce on others what they themselves are not following. It is sad it had to come to the group being banned. However, If I had someone coming to my home (the business is the owners property) and I had an idea the guests may cause issues to family members I may choose not to invite them. Not to hurt them or exclude them but to keep both sides from getting into a major drama. For the respect of both sides so that nobody clashes.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
Don't have an account yet? Create Account