• Prichard

    Once we fix the Bible we should be good, references to Adam and Eve and also references to ‘In the beginning he created them male and female and ..husband and wife…’ should be removed. Adam and Eve set a bad example not because they disobeyed God and paid for the consequences, but set a bad example of the first family created in the GOE as being a husband and wife union.

  • Larry

    And therefore it is your god given right to deny Mr. Cruz access to shops, lodging, education, food and employment.

    Maybe we can also bring up how the Bible was used to justify doing thew same to people of color as well. http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/bible_and_segregation



  • James Carr

    Gay Christians, if they deem themselves Christian in the dogmatic sense, must recognize that their sexual acts are acts of intentional sin. As any Christian knows, we are all sinners…..and our tendency towards it must be muted by self control. We cannot regard our faults as anything but what God claims them to be.
    This law is not intended to legitimize discrimination, it’s intention is to protect gays from targeting the small minority of business people who cannot compromise their moral conscience in the specific arena of gay marriage, not homosexuality generally.
    Gay Christians should understand this and accept the dilemma that they place the person in.The right thing to do would be to cross the street and seek someone who doesn’t care.

  • James Carr

    …….I meant prevent, not protect gays……

  • Eliel Cruz

    The beginning of your comment is completely reductionist, derails from the topic at hand, and proves my previous column.

    Second, please provide to me a biblical argument in which discrimination is acceptable. Also, how do basic services equate officiating a sacred union? I used bibilical arguments to say why i believe Jesus — even if he disagreed with the union — would bake the cake. I kindly ask you to do the same.

  • Kevin

    If Jesus were to bake such a cake, he would probably write, “Go and sin no more” on it with his finger.

  • Shawnie5

    Eliel, secular/atheist LGBTs are another thing entirely, and there is much that they can not be expected to understand. You, however, bearing the name of Christian, are as obligated to heed the law of love wrt your brethren in Christ as they are wrt you. And according to Paul, “And when you sin against other believers by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ. So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live–for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble.” I Cor. 8:12-13 (NLT)

    Jesus, as well, spoke of the seriousness of causing even the least of our brethren to stumble and sin. I’m sure you know the passage.

    Food for thought. Peace.

  • Ron T

    Good point! We cannot re-write the Bible to force a grandma to bake a wedding* cake.

    At the same time, suing a grandma for discrimination that has lovingly baked cakes all her life, who stands by her religious conviction of not baking a cake for a ‘gay wedding’, who, has otherwise willingly served a gay customer for birthdays and the like, is not right.

  • James Carr

    In Colossians 3:16 it says, ” Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom youTEACH and ADMONISH one another…..”

    It is a Christian duty then to admonish a fellow Christian on what is acceptable to God. To be asked to contribute something to an event that defiles God’s teaching on marriage is asking someone to, more or less, provide a sacrifice to a pagan god.

    It is not discrimination. This particular issue is not like other civil rights issues, since it goes to the very conscience and fear of culpability with sin, of a true believer.

  • There’s no public safe zone for disagreeing with gay lifestyle.

    It’s pure craziness that a citizen of America cannot publicly state his belief that marriage is meant for male and female without risking accusations of hate and bigotry? Citizens are only safe to publicly endorse gay lifestyles and homosexuals can publicly say whatever they want about their private sexual preferences.

  • Doc Anthony

    Or wiping out a grandmother who has served as a florist for both gays and straights, even employing gay and straight employees. All because, on the specific basis of her faith, she refused a request to participate in (and thereby help affirm and celebrate) a gay wedding.

    No mercy, no civility, no compromise, from the gay bullies and their allies. Just isn’t their style anymore. The new fascism has arrived.

    That’s why RFRA’s are needed — and with specific wording to keep the gay bullies from wiping out grandmothers.

  • Doc Anthony

    I seriously wonder why the Jesus who clearly defined and described the origin, design, and nature of marriage in unmistakably **gender-complementarian** terms in Matt 19 (even to the point of directly quoting from the Genesis account!)…

    4 “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (cf. Gen. 1:27)

    5 “and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (Gen. 2:24)

    6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    …would suddenly contradict and deny and negate everything He said, by baking a homosexual or LGBT wedding-cake for ANY customer?

  • Larry

    Screw bigoted granny and the excuses she gives to act like a malicious d-bag to tray customers like crap. She was no better when she claimed God didn’t want her to serve Doc Anthony and all his “colored friends”, back in the day.

    If she can’t be civil to customers and not violate antidiscrimination laws, bankruptcy is a service to the public.

  • Larry

    Because you are a bigot. You want to attack a group of people under the color of law. If you don’t like the label, tough crap. Its more than appropriate for your attitude.

    Your right to expression doesn’t mean you get to avoid being criticized nor do you have a right to attack others in public spheres. You don’t want free speech, you want license to do what you want to whomever you want.

  • Larry

    Because as ypu contend, the bible tells us Jesus was a passive-aggressive jerk. 🙂

  • Doc Anthony

    SHE has served more gay customers and also **employed** more gay employees than YOU ever have, now ain’t that right Larry? Yeah that’s right, and we both know it. (I bet she probably served more blacks than you ever have, too.)

    In fact, that reminds me. Although my line of work is different, and although I am anti-gay-marriage (obviously), I would double dog dare you to dispute, that even ole “despicable me” have served more gays AND lesbians AND trans AND hiv+ AND blacks AND whites AND latinos AND native-Americans (and even a couple of Russian and Islamic families to boot!!) than you ever have.

    Wot’cha think of that, dude?

    See, your ONLY conception of “being civil” is for people of religious faith, (any religion or even the religion of atheism), to KOWTOW and SURRENDER to the Gay Marriage Bullies automatically upon request, even if that move clearly violates a person’s constitutional religious freedoms.

    But that situation is not “civility”, Larry. That situation is TOTAL MESS. Total mess brings America down. We can’t have you bringin’ America down, sir!!

  • Larry

    Well how would she know they were gay if they are just buying flowers?

    Doc, any excuses you wiil make for treating gays like crap will be said by you. So credibility is not your strong point.

    There are no excuses for discrimination in business. Ever.

    So she wasn’t a bigot 100% of the time. SFW? She broke the state anti-discrimination law in order to treat gay customers like crap. To hell with that and her martyrbaiting supporters. You want me to sympathize with her? Not a chance. Now she is making tons more money as a public speaker on the bigoted wingnut circuit. Boo friggin hoo.

    The public can do without arbitrary restrictions on the open market because people want to act like bigoted d-bags. It was stupid when they were keeping you out of the stores, it hasn’t gotten any less stupid (but the supporters for discrimination definitely took a drop in the IQ department).

    You want to pretend we are back in the Jim Crow era again, good luck with that. My level of care for what you have to say is less than none.

  • Ben in oakland

    Of course there is. You just did.

    What you want is the right to public statement of bigotry– and it long ago left the idea that marriages is between a man and a woman– in order to say whatever you want without any blowback for saying it.

    Those says are gone. Long gone.

    But not to worry, you can engage in a routine accusation of some sort of political terrorism, as you just did. And you know what will happen to you? nothing. We rally don’t care too much about you personally. Your just the weak end of a long line of people who have been falsely accusing us, reviling and slandering us, for centuries. Nothing new here.

    All that will happen is that you have just publicly identified yourself as a bigot. And then you will complain that you have been unjustly accused.

    Also nothing new here.

  • James Carr

    Steve…you are so right. The gays, right now, are free to say anything they want and label every person a bigot who does not agree with them. They even mock God and Religion with abandon, then play the role of martyr or saint.
    I wonder how much they had to bully their straight parents into accepting, not only them, but the entire gay ideology?
    There will be a backlash, I believe, to all this grandstanding and hate from them. Soon someone will yell “Shut the hell up”, and there will be a universal standing ovation.

  • Doc Anthony

    “Well how would she know they were gay if they are just buying flowers?” you asked.

    Because many gays have no compunction about letting people know where they stand. They’re “out of the closet”, remember?

    Just like being a Christian, being gay is a religion (a competing, opposing religion), and there are many people in both religions who simply don’t mind “witnessing” a little bit, concerning their chosen self-identity. So it is not difficult to answer your question.

  • Larry

    Shorter Doc: “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”


  • Abe the Magnificient


  • Abe the Magnificient

    You have to set your sights a little wider. ALL religion is inherently dangerous stuff which inspires dangerous stupidity.

    Suicide bombing was invented by Buddhists flying planes and Hindus strapping bomb belts to themselves.

  • James Carr

    Censorship is a good thing.

  • Greg

    The First Amendment is as follows, and only applies to individuals, and very very small business owners:

    1) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    2) or abridging the freedom of speech,
    3) or of the press
    4) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    None of those rights apply to any businesses, just individuals. So if we see large groups gathered and coordinated by an organization, it is illegal.
    If we see the big-business press reporting things we don’t like, we can sue them, as they are not protected by First Amendment Rights
    If we see large groups of protesters exercising their corporate free speech coordinated by organizations such as, National Organization for Women, that as well would be illegal.
    And of course we have those small businesses disallowing people their service based upon their belief.

    If the last one is true, then so are all the others. They are all part of the First Amendment.

  • James Carr

    The Japanese kamikazis are Shinto, and the Muslims are the human bombs.

  • Abe the Magnificent

    James, you just displayed your ignorance.

    Shinto and Buddhist are not exclusive categories or beliefs. Polytheism makes it easy to blend them. Japanese are both.

    The suicide bomber belt was invented by perennially cash starved Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. Hindus. They were using them decades before Muslims were.

  • Pingback: Russell Moore: “Equality Act is a threat to religious freedom” - Faithfully LGBT()