After gay marriage ruling, try tolerance for both sides (COMMENTARY)

Print More
Cherilyn Wilson, 26, left, and Chelsea Kane, 26, display their fists, with the message "Love Wins" written on them, as they pose at a celebration rally in West Hollywood, California, United States, on June 26, 2015. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson
*Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-TRINKO-COMMENTARY, originally transmitted on July 7, 2015.

Cherilyn Wilson, 26, left, and Chelsea Kane, 26, display their fists, with the message "Love Wins" written on them, as they pose at a celebration rally in West Hollywood, California, United States, on June 26, 2015. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-TRINKO-COMMENTARY, originally transmitted on July 7, 2015.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) In the short time since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states, those with religious objections are already facing punishment.

  • Pingback: After gay marriage ruling, try tolerance for both sides (COMMENTARY) - mosaicversemosaicverse()

  • Tietia

    Bible is clear in Romans 1:18-32 also in 1 Corinthians 5,6 and 7 that all sin is
    wrong and God has not changed His standards/the Bible is the Word of God
    so we need to stand for the Truth cause bad mouthing religion has backfired
    and people are now spiritual instead of Biblical. All sin is wrong and the Bible
    says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 all of sin is wrong! Matthew 7:13-23 and also in
    Luke 13 says we must Repent/change! People who get drunk,gossip,gamble,
    be mean,sleep around,sell sex,covet/are greedy/jealous need to all change!
    Bible says to Repent and believe the Gospel to be saved! We must Repent!

  • Larry

    The “both sides” request is ridiculous. Only one side sought to deny the civil liberties of a group of people and refusing to treat them like human beings.

    Religious liberty is not a license to discriminate. Nobody has to tie up open commerce because of the personal prejudices of store owners. We already had that era in our history. When people had to navigate through which vendors would serve them and which ones did not, in a segregated market.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

    The Utah law the author supports is a joke. It still permits discrimination and had provisions which invalidate it entirely if challenged in court.

    The reasons the author gives for opposing marriage equality are not particularly intelligent nor credible. “I think children deserve a dad and a mom” is about the most brain dead reason out there. Children to gay couples don’t ever have that option. Banning gay marriage would not create one for them.

  • Well said about being open for business to the public and equal access to public accommodations.

  • Then the Christian baker should be refusing to service a lot more people than just gays. Here, he is inconsistent and cherry picking the prohibitions he agrees with. This is nothing but discrimination.

  • Jon

    What kind of justification besides Christian privilege is there for giving churches tax-exempt status in the first place? Nowadays we do still have a few other types of churches, but it seems clear that churches were originally given tax exempt status, in violation of the constitution, to unfairly favor Christianity over other motivational businesses. Nowadays, a motivational business like Dale Carnegie or Zig Ziglar has to pay taxes, while motivational businesses like Joel Osteen don’t. It needs to end – regardless of other harm, like the fostering of discrimination, etc.

  • Shorter version: Please tolerate the intolerant.

  • Ben in oakland

    I get it.

    Now that you have lost, and lost big time, we’re all supposed to forget the losing side calling us threats to everything that is good and holy, morality, faith, freedom, heterosexuality, children, marriage, family, and western civilization.

    Now that you have lost, and lost big time, we’re all supposed to forget the losing side calling us perverts, sick, twisted, disgusting, child molesters, diseased, counterfeit, deniers of god, and on and on and on.

    you bring up the Kleins, which was not a case of marriage at all, but of antidiscrimination laws. You ignore don’t ask don’t tell, and the thousands of documented cases of antigay discrimination, in favor of the handful cake martyrs, too stupid and self righteous to run their businesses properly.

    You know what’s really funny, lady? Despite centuries of abuse, jails, murders, executions, we couldn’t possibly not care about you any less than we already don’t.

    your persecution is both imaginary and inflated.

  • Ben in oakland

    Now you want coexistence. Before you lost, it was all about taking no prisoners, total victory, and sending the homosexuals back into the closet.

  • Larry

    It denies churches a right to be represented in government. Taxation = representation. That is provided the churches don’t act like PACs. Then all bets are off.

  • Pollo

    I’ll tolerate those opposed to gay marriage as much as I tolerate those opposed to interacial marriage. Yes, they do exist and I’ve had the unfortunate experience of meeting one.
    I couldn’t care less if your religion asks you to oppose my friends pursuit of happiness. I wouldn’t excuse a racist’s defense of “my beliefs are that black and white people being seperated is best for society and the will of god”. And yes, people have made that argument before, in the 60’s, when churches and schools were being desegregated.
    I will tolerate Christians and Christianity. But if someone, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, suggests or argues that gay and lesbian people be treated like a second class citizen (because by saying they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, that’s exactly what you’re doing), we’re going to have problems. Religious-backed discrimination is still discrimination. No matter how sincere.

  • Pollo

    Bingo.
    And besides, there’s clearly a double standard. If that same baker was denying service to black people based on religious beliefs, more people would be on board with a punishment. And yet with gays it’s “religious liberty”.
    Are you kidding me??? So if I just so happen to guide my life on the teachings of the racists pastors of the 1960s, I should be allowed to make black people sit in designated “colored people” areas? It would technically be “sincerely held religious beliefs”. That’s horrible. My religious beliefs have turned me into a terrible person.

  • Jon

    Yep. ‘coulda saved a lot of electrons by going with your accurate summary.

  • Jon

    I’m not sure it actually has that effect. Churches leverage huge power through lobbyists and directing their members. Their power that way seems similar to, say, business owners, who are taxed.

    After all, “no taxation without representation” only applies to human individuals, not to other entities that are taxed, like businesses or acres.

    I wonder if churches get the same amount of representation as other motivational/ideological businesses, but are spared the tax? Seems like it.

  • Larry

    Religion is one of those things that is not supposed to have direct government influence.

    Taxing them puts 1st Amendment issues at stake. You have both established government endorsed religion and possible attacks of free exercise. Taxation powers being a coercive force for the government. It can easily serve sectarian discriminatory ends in such situations.

  • bqrq

    “….Among those who back gay marriage, there has been almost complete silence on religious liberty….”

    There is also complete silence on the moral veracity of encouraging and promoting the practice of sodomy. Gay marriage is a distinct form of legalized child molesting and those who support it obviously do not care whether it is right or wrong, nor who gets hurt.

  • Stacy

    Yes, tolerance of a RIGHT, needs to come from all. Get government out of marriage.

    facebook.com/multiwifefamilies

  • bqrq

    Pollo said;
    “…..there’s clearly a double standard. If that same baker was denying service to black people based on religious beliefs…..”

    Dear Pollo,
    There is distinct difference between skin color and two men practicing sodomy. One is genetic and immutable, the other is immoral and predatory.

  • Jeff

    No tolerance should ever be given to the christian organizations that try to impose discriminatory laws directed at the LGBT Community.

  • Larry

    So being prejudiced against Christians is OK. After all you can just convert. You chose to be part of such an evil religion. 🙂

    See how that worked. Anyone can find excuses to justify their prejudices. It means nothing. If you want to act like a raging d-bag, you are still a raging d-bag no matter what explanation you want to give for your behavior.

  • ronald

    It is terribel the way the “loving” gays are showing bigoted intolerance for us Christians just because we don’t agree with their lifestyle. All we want to do is jail them and use conversion techniques on them for their own good, and they act like we are “persecuting” them! Such irrational hatred.

    Stand strong, Katrina! We will overcome, for He is with us!

  • Rev Joseph Broz

    Sweet Cakes bakery was fined 4135,000 because they are practicing Christians that do not agree with gay marriage. Tolerance in my book means you don’t use government to correct religious belief. Gays and straight or in between should be demanding that fines like this are unjust and wrong when imposed under government law. Tell your government officials to stop this now.

  • Jon

    I agree that religion is not supposed to have direct government influence. Help me out – I’m trying to see how taxing them is a problem.
    Compare this to taxing Stephen Covey’s motivational tapes & seminars. Doing so does not establish government endorsed Steven Covey (SC), nor does it cause unfair discrimination if Dale Carnegie motivational seminars are also taxed. How is that different? SC and DC motivational seminars are already taxed, and have been for years.

    In fact, is *not taxing* Christian motivational seminars discriminary, giving Christian motivational seminars an unfair advantage over SC or DC motivational seminars? Doesn’t it seem like it clearly is discriminatory?

  • bqrq

    Larry,
    Do you practice sodomy with your wife? Does she consider it normal? Is it really normal? What’s good about it?

  • Larry

    Imagine a legislature decides churches should be regressively taxed. The Catholic Churches would be fine, but the Church of the Dude has a greater burden to meet.

    Taxation could easily be used to create economic sanctions to a church for certain activities which would normally be part of their normal existence. It can be used as a tool for sectarian discrimination. Determining who gets taxed and for what reasons can easily get mired in religious prejudices.

    Taxation creates government control over something. The government should seek as little entanglement with religion as possible.

  • Larry

    No, they got fined for violating the state anti-discrimination laws. They were a business open to the public, therefore they had to serve the public. There is no compelling interest in government in creating a segregated marketplace.

    Religious belief is not license to discriminate. Nobody has to tolerate a situation where prejudice keeps people from being able to purchase goods and services available to the general public.

    Why do Christians have to lie so badly to support their views?

    You don’t want religious freedom. There is nothing unjust about anti-discrimination laws. You want a privilege to treat others as less than people.

  • Ben in oakland

    That is simply untrue, rev. As the author of the article notes, The sweet cakes issue occurred before marriage was legal in Oregon. If you continue to tell these kinds of lies lies, don’t be surprised if someone calls you on it.

    But of course, you defend discrimination on the basis of religious belief. But I truly suspect that it gave people started discriminated against you on the basis of religious belief, you’ dbe screaming bloody murder.

  • Ben in oakland

    What is it with your obsession about other people sex lives, especially your imaginings about sodomy?

  • Jon

    But one could say that same thing about SC and DC. “Because businesses could be taxed unfairly, the government should not tax businesses.” Right? “Because government could tax people unfairly, government should not tax people.”. “Because taxation could be done in a racially discriminatory way, no one should be taxed.”

    See? Just because problems could be envisioned doesn’t mean that things can be done well, even if not perfectly. One could also say that “Because government projects could be given to states unfairly, not government projects can exist.” In all these examples, feasible solutions are ignored.

    Larry, we nearly always agree – but in this case your arguments aren’t holding up yet.

  • Larry

    I bet you are typing that one handed. 🙂

    Can you please stop masturbating online to thoughts of my marital lovemaking activities?

    Its getting embarrassing. I am sure neither of us can match what sick little fantasies goes on in your mind.

  • Larry

    But the government always had a right to a piece of the income generated by for-profit businesses in one way or another. The basic concept of taxing a corporation is not objectionable at any level. Government is expected to regulate corporations and commerce in general.

    They are not expected to do so for churches. Religious activities are supposed to be far more personal than acting for pecuniary gain. Using government to favor a corporation is not on the same level as using government to favor a religion. Government can engage in commerce, it is not supposed to engage in religious activities.

    Its not that taxation can be used for discriminatory ends, it is the certainty, it WILL be used for discriminatory ends. Any time government entangles itself with religion it leads to sectarian discrimination. Its a given.

  • Ben in oakland

    Ms. Trinko,

    When you thought you were winning, you didn’t give a damn about coexisting: not with gay people, not with our families, not with gay supportive churches. Their religious freedom was simply irrelevant to you.

    Now that you have lost yet another battle, it’s all “now be nice to us, no matter what and said and did.” Well, guess what? we granted your wishes years ago.

    I went to San Francisco Gay pride. There were over 1 million people there. There were a number of churches and denominations proclaiming gods inclusive love for everyone. I saw just one man, who seem to hate gay people and Catholics would equal fervor, passing out his literature. I saw another man passing out literature about sexual immoralities. And that was pretty much it. There were no speeches from the podium denouncing Christians, there was no effort on the part of anyone even to acknowledge that anti-gay, so called Christian, so called theologies even exist. You were simply not relevant.

  • Larry

    Shorter bqrq: sodomy….fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap..grabs tissue.

  • bqrq

    Ben asked;
    “……What is it with your obsession about other people sex lives, especially your imaginings about sodomy?…..”

    Dear Ben,
    The whole purpose and meaning of gay marriage, gay rights and the gay lifestyle revolves around sodomy. This is the core issue on RNS, it is the underlying motivation behind almost every subject we discuss. That is what it means to be gay.

  • Ben in oakland

    In other words, there was really no interest in the kind of world that You are certain must exist: no animosity despite the animosity directed at us, no disparagement despite the disparaging directed at us, no calls for prosecution or persecution or anything. Just 1 million people having a good time.

    Unfortunately for the Christian right, they are just not as relevant to us as they seem to have to believe that they are. If they would just shut up and mind their own business, and obey the law that governs all of us, they would find that we couldn’t possibly not care about them any less than we already don’t. But they need to pretend that they are, because there are votes to influence, power to accrue, money to gather, and a lot homosexual hating homosexuals who need to exercise their own very real demons inder the guise of exorcising my completely imaginary ones.

    We weren’t attacking and demonizing you, let alone heterosexuality or family.

    Please return the favor.

  • Ben in oakland

    Honey, no.

    That’s all you. Idontt write about sodomy and young men. I don’t ask perfect strangers about their sodomitical habits. You seem to obsess about Sauta me more than any gay person I have ever met.

    You can get help with that. Try asking Jesus. Maybe he’ll cure you.

  • Ben in oakland

    Ipad did it again. Sodomy, not Sauta, whatever that is.

  • Jon

    “but … always…” ” they are expected to…” : argumentum ad tradition.

    Even if true (and that’s not clear), an argument from tradition is invalid. An argument from tradition would perpetuate slavery, male privilege, etc.

    Taxing something is not the same as “engaging in” it, any more than the Christian baker is “engaging in” the gay wedding.

    Your argument that it *will* be used for discrimination sounds like you are saying we need to abolish all taxes. I’m waiting to see why it’s OK to tax some businesses, and not others (the ones called “churches”).

    Unless you can come up with an actual reason that isn’t a word game, we may have to agree to disagree on this one. (not a huge deal, I appreciate all your many good posts, which generally have a lot more basis than your argument here, so far at least).

  • Ben in oakland

    Your opinion of him is obviously better than mine.

  • Ben in oakland

    That would be extremely simple for you.just get your self divorced, and the government will no longer be in your marriage.

    But no social security benefits on your husbands account for your your children. Wanna see him in the hospital? whoops, you’re not legally related. Want that familydiscount over at the public pool? Whoops. You’re not related. Think you’re entitled to medical care on your husbands job? whoops, you’re not related. He decides he wants to marry someone else? Whoops. Nothing you can do about it, becuase you’re not married.

    Funny, that Idea was never proposed until gay people started asking for marriage. Perhaps you ought to educate yourself as to the legal realities of legal marriage before you start going on about something you obviously know nothing about.

  • Larry

    “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
    -John Marshall

    I was not being clear. The government is expected to tax corporations because it has the power to regulate commerce inherent within the constitution. Government has no business regulating religion. The 1st Amendment forbids it.

    Taxation power is a form of regulatory power. Government can make demands on whatever it taxes.

    Every time a government entangles itself with religion, it ends up engaging in sectarian discrimination. Its why the establishment clause is so important. Separation of church and state protects both from each other. Taxation violates that separation by giving government undue power to pressure churches.

  • Larry

    Profanity filters have left me with little to say to the guy. 🙂

  • JR

    The gay lobby is absolutely selfish and vindictive towards religion as an entity. They believe that Religion is the only obstacle to their cause which believes gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage. Rather than avoid treading on the definition of marriage so as not to insult the historical/religious identity it always has had, they badgered society with analogies of civil rights and sex is love, to demand they be included in the common definition.
    They will continue the haunting of the religious talk in the public square, the part that sees their acts as sinful, and religious liberties will be stifled. Those who have backed this new law will regret what they have put into motion, blinded as they were that somehow this change was for the social good.

  • Jon

    Thanks, that’s more clear.

    However, it still doesn’t explain what’s different about something that someone is calling “religion”.

    Take 5 organizations. All own land, bring in an income, pay employees, and have a budget and bank account. Two of them claim that they don’t have to pay taxes because they are “religions”. I don’t see any way to resolve this that isn’t discriminatory, except tax all of them (or none of them).

    By *not* taxing religions, they are being endorsed by the government. It seems like backwards and perverse logic to claim that paying taxes like any other organization is being “endorsed”, while the opposite seems clear: that being tax exempt is government endorsing religion.

    And for a third time – you’ve claimed that taxing churches shouldn’t be done because it is potenially discriminatory, yet you haven’t explained why your exact same argument doesn’t mean that all businesses should be tax-free.

  • Larry

    I have zero objection whatsoever to taxing anything belonging to a church which isn’t a house of worship or related to the administration of them. Tax laws need to be more fine tuned there. We agree.

    “yet you haven’t explained why your exact same argument doesn’t mean that all businesses should be tax-free.”

    Because businesses fall under commerce power of the government (Article 1). Religion falls under 1st Amendment rights to keep government off its back for the most part (The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause). Government has open permission to deal with corporations under the commerce powers. The government doesn’t need much pretext to control commercial ventures.

    When it comes to religion, powers are largely restrictive in nature to government action. It is always hemmed in by preventing government established religion and giving free exercise of religion. Taxation creates both government endorsed religion and restricts exercise of religion.

  • Ben in oakland

    As always, you just construct reality in order to fit your preconceived notions about it. As you know extremely well, there are a multitude of churches, ministers, rabbis, synagogues, and entire denominations that support gay people in the right to be married, and do not agree with fundamentalist and fundamentalist catholics like you.

    I know you don’t consider them to be a good Christian like yourself, but then, they think the same thing about you, your obsession with homosexuality, and your willingness to make untrue statements like the one I’m responding to. As I said in another posting here, you would be surprised – well you would be extremely, extremely surprised – to find out how little we actually care about you.

    But that neither feeds your self aggrandizing selfrighteousness nor your persecution complex.

  • Jack

    The author is living in fantasy-land. Even a cursory read of the posts on this board shows that her dream is about as far from reality as can be.

    Mutual tolerance is only possible when both sides believe in the basic premises of liberal democracy, including the old adage, “I strongly disagree with your view but I will defend to the death your right to express it.”

    That view began to die after the late 1960s, when the radical left began pushing out traditional liberals and co-opting the word, “liberal” for itself.

  • Jon

    What’s a “house of worship”? Does that include any building that includes Christian services? What about a building that houses a religion that isn’t Christian, who’s services include monetary transactions?

    You’ve said that “businesses” fall under the commerce act – but aren’t the things that we call “churches” providing a service – a show that may make people feel better or feel that they’ve fulfilled an obligation? These people pay for that service. Hence, a “church” is a business, and under the commerce act. The only distinction I can see is that the church claims supernatural powers – the same as psychics do – yet they are not tax -exempt.

    Being tax-exempt is government endorsement of religion much more than being taxed is, as I’ve pointed out. Do you have any criteria for what’s a “church” and what isn’t that isn’t based on Christian norms? Even if you do, it might be pretty arbitrary and capricious.

  • Jack

    In other words, for Larry, tolerance is reserved for people who agree with him — thus rendering the word utterly meaningless.

  • Jack

    Even shorter version from JC Samuelson:

    “I will tolerate only those who agree with me.”

    The result is to drain the word of any intelligible meaning.

  • Jon

    Well, I’ve got to go, so we’ll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the interesting conversation. Your position is, I think, quite common in any case -for what that’s worth. Have a nice night.

  • ben in oakland

    I didn’t think he would even get a tissue, but I am too polite to say so. So, I won’t.

  • Jack

    The author naively assumes that people on both sides share her belief in the values of a liberal democratic society. She is, in a way, assuming that the forces behind gay marriage are similar in tone, tenor, and ideology as the forces behind the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

    Were that so, she wouldn’t have to be making that plea for tolerance in the first place.

    If she knew history, she’d know that after the 1960s, something profound happened to American liberalism. It was co-opted by illiberal forces of the radical left which then began to call themselves liberal. Any and every political and social movement that came out of that era was subsequently affected by it.

    So what she’s arguing for no longer exists within any movement of the left. It once did, but that was long ago.

  • Pollo

    “Immoral and predatory”.
    A perfect example of ignorance. Please, educate yourself. If people are becoming intolerant towards Christians, people like you are the reason why. Congratulations. You’re part of the reason why religious affiliation is continually going down in the U.S. No one wants to be affiliated with such ignorant individuals like yourself, so they seek other spiritual paths. The world around you is changing and soon enough, your beliefs will die alongside with you as the majority are no longer agreeing with “gay people are immoral and predatory”.
    Psh… Get real, man.

  • Jack

    In other words, in JeffWorld, tolerance ends where disagreement begins.

    Welcome to the infantilizing of America.

  • Ben in oakland

    you must understand that BQRQ is rabidly, inflammatorily, without redemption, anti gay. He fanatasizes constantly about anal sex with young men, when he isn’t fanatasizing about larry and his wife, or me and my husband, or indeed, anyone who is not him.

    I wouldn’t pay him too much attention. Even the not-quite-as-rabidly-but still antigay on this site don’t have much to do with him.

    Hand him a clean white towel and don’t worry about him. you’ll have to bathe less often if you do that.

  • Ben in oakland

    I didn’t realize this lady works for the heritage foundation: they of the bogus list of gay persecution offenses that has been laughed out of every court in which it has been presented.

    That explains everything.

  • Normandy

    Nope. We don’t need to tolerate their hatred. The law has spoken. Now we punish.

  • Normandy

    Silly, Should we tolerate the Nazis? The KKK? No. Its ok to hate the hateful. Society is better without them.

  • Normandy

    Im afraid youre an imbecile. Please don’t go full retard on here.

  • Normandy

    Jack, come on, dumdum. Religion is made up. Tolerating made up sheit leads to trouble. You bigots can believe what you want, but you will not impose. Not any longer. We start punishing now.

  • Normandy

    sodomy is also oral sex, dumdum-ALL straights do it

  • Normandy

    No, dumdum. Most gays also believe in God

  • Ted

    Christians feeling “persecuted” in America should Google “Matthew Shepard” and practice some humility.

  • Ted

    Fapfapfappityfap …

  • JR

    If gays care so little about “fundamentalists” then stop baiting bakeries, stop defining marriage to suit a minority of a minority. I’m positive many gays have no interest in marriage, or at least marriage with the same standard traditional marriage vows.
    I’m not obsessed with homosexuality any more than other hot topics today. I’m exposed to gays everyday, and have no problem with them at all. It is the GAYS I argue against, who have overstepped logic and demand an equality that they don’t have the correct equipment for. Of course my right to say and believe this will be shouted down as the protestation of a fundamental Catholic…..archaic, homophobic, fanatical, bigoted, a robot of the Pope, the lies are endless! I don’t create my reality, I respond to what is going on currently…..just as you do.

  • JR

    Oh yeah, blame it on Christians. The guy was cruising straight guys, always a dangerous situation when you mix booze, drugs, et all to the incident. If it happened to a woman, would she have become a national icon?

  • Jack

    Uh, Normandy, I hate to break it to you, lad, but nobody’s really interested in a public airing of your private fantasies.

    Have a nice day.

  • Jack

    When all else fails, trot out Adolf’s gang and bring in a bunch of Democrats in white hoods and burning crosses for good measure…..

    Ho hum….

  • Jack

    Normandy, I think it’s past your bedtime.

  • Jack

    Nice justification for “take no prisoners,” Ben. It’s an old tactic used by individuals who are naturally predisposed to take no prisoners.

  • Ben in oakland

    Punish? Whom? and why would any gay person in their right mind want to? I have no wish myself for the contamination of fundamentalism anywhere near me. Nor does anyone I know.

    Methinks your a right wing troll, Mr. Normandy.

  • Ben in oakland

    Fundamentalists aren’t nazis. Not even close.

    I’m still thinking you’re a right wing troll.

  • Ben in oakland

    Not me, jack. Talk to Normandy.

  • Larry

    Jack didn’t bother to read what I wrote. Just like he doesn’t bother to read a lot of things he allegedly opposes and finds fault with.

  • Larry

    How about good Christian folk stop taking their cues from the Jim Crow South. We do not need to go back to the days when people had to carry around lists of which vendors would serve them and which ones wouldn’t.

    You don’t want to serve the entire public, don’t open your business to the public. You want your religious beliefs to be a socially acceptable excuse to treat people like crap, tough friggin luck. Nobody has to live according to your prejudices.

  • …”Most gays also believe in God”…THAT is a VERY interesting statement,Normandy; exactly what does it mean? For that matter,what “god”do”most gays”believe in,and exactly WHAT do they believe about said god?

  • Ben in oakland

    See what I mean?

    Pushing sodomy onto children. LOL–BT!!!!N

    I’m not the one that keeps talking about it, and talking about it, and talking about it.

  • Barry the Baptist

    Why do you insist on demonizing people who fall left of center as “illiberal” because they do not recognize your religiously-founded dislikes as worthy of consideration by the rest of us or the State?

    The movement you mentioned was pushed by progressive, “leftist,” individuals and notions. It couldn’t have been done by the people on the “right” who, by definition, are conservative; at best, anybody who votes conservatively on issues of civil rights is advocating for the right of their individual state to decide whether or not to outlaw systematic bigotry. For them, this is not about civil rights but whether or not societies should be held to a standard possibly external to that society, at that time. It’s a question of whether we follow an objective morality or one subject to the society we live in: one law for all or only laws for some?

  • Be Brave

    As anyone can see, Larry is like a Gestapo agent that seeks out those that oppose the Fourth Reich.

    This is persecution plain, simple and complicated. What is happening to true Christians is what was predicted would happen (prophetic) they are being targeted by their enemies for total submission and ruination.

    ALL must worship the rainbow idol. The new Moloch has come.

  • Be Brave

    This is incredible to watch. The persecution of Christians is not only implemented but cheered on. That people that are defined exclusively by their sexual behavior are now the morality heroes shows us that the Bible is not just a book of opinions but a collection of writings directed by God.

    I for one will send persecuted Christians money to weather the horrid storm they are suffering through. I will pray that God deliver His Church the angry hands of homosexual mobs. I will do as the Apostles did. It is no longer time to think that things will get better. When love is now redefined as depravity and “anything goes” it is too late to save society.

    Christians must stop praying for society as a whole and now implement the love for each that Jesus wanted in the first place. We are facing the greatest enemy in centuries leering to destroy us. The time for ignoring the Beast has no longer applicable. Just read the actions planned by anti-Christians in just these comments.

  • Be Brave

    Normandy July 7, 2015 at 6:54 pm:
    “No, dumdum. Most gays also believe in God”

    So do the demons.

  • Be Brave

    Gay paower (homosexuality and bi-sexuality) and acceptance of that power came riding into society connected to godlessness and sexual promiscuity movements.

    Just for the record. Lest we bury truth in historic rewrite.

  • David Frensley

    Time to update:(paraphrased with real actions and consequences added)

    “Get out of our way,” Sodom’s homosexuals said. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! WE’LL TREAT YOU WORSE THAN THEM.” The homosexuals were bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. They were driven to put him out of business, destroy his home and destroy his religious beliefs.

    Genesis 19

    And when people are homeless and jobless, they can’t take care of the poor and the needy. Those that are haughty saw to that.

    ‘Now this was the sin of the Sodomites: They were arrogant, educated and financially successful and supported by many, many others. They were unconcerned about the morality of those that opposed sodomy and hated them and didn’t care about anyone else; they did not help the poor and needy by crushing Christians. They were haughty as defined by “Gay Pride” and did detestable things before me.

    Ezekiel 16

  • Jack

    Actually, Larry, I did read what you wrote — and its the same-old-same-old apologetic for your inherent intolerance of those who disagree with you.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that tolerance and intolerance are mostly personality traits. That explains why both can be found across much of the political or ideological spectrum.

    You just have a naturally intolerant personality that never sees nuance or admits that someone can disagree with you on fundamental issues and still have decent motives.

  • Jack

    Not quite, Be Brave…..But if Christian and non-Christian friends of religious freedom just roll over and play dead, or, worse, rationalize their passivity by saying it’s “the great apostasy coming” or whatever, then, sure, that could happen.

    In a way, this is really nothing new. In any free society, there are always threats of various kinds to liberty — be it freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, etc. The threats can come from anywhere — left, right, center.

    This is just the latest incarnation. And like all others, it must be met with resolution, and not whining.

  • Jack

    I think you might be right about Normandy….He’s definitely some sort of poser….don’t know which side, though.

  • JR

    Stop comparing your cause to Black Civil Rights, there is no similarity. Gays were never accepted anywhere in all of history, so there is no centuries old record of society trying to give them equality…..or anything. Like prostitution, it was always a condition that was sneered at. Thank your lucky stars you are living in these immoral times…….anything goes today.

  • Jack

    Anything’s possible, but Occam’s Razor favors the simpler explanation that he is what he seems.

  • Jack

    I am opposed to gay marriage and am obviously appalled by the religious freedom violations that are coming down the pike, but it is wrong to speak of homosexuals as though they are either demons or subhuman.

    I completely understand that part of this is driven by a hatred of militant, in-your-face people who hate Christianity and Christians and would persecute us at the drop of a hat, but two points to make on this.

    First, it’s wrong to assume that most gay people think this way. I know gay people who don’t.

    Second, much of the obnoxious behavior and the desire to silence Christians is not coming from gay people per se, but from a minority of gay people who have been radicalized by the extreme left. It is not their being gay that drives them to this behavior, but, rather, their being influenced by the far left.

    It began after the late 1960s, and gays are not the only people affected. Any group with a history of being marginalized has been targeted.

  • Jack

    Barry, are you talking to me? (No, I’m not doing a de Niro imitation, just asking a straightforward question.)

    Assuming you are…….Illiberal is as illiberal does. The response to this article speaks for itself.

    Illiberal is a nice way of putting it.

    Maybe you’re not a history buff and think that the way self-styled liberals behave today is the way actual liberals once behaved, but the opposite is the case. There’s nothing normal about taking every political disagreement between people and turning it into an all-or-nothing nuclear war, degrading and demonizing people who dare to disagree with you.

    All sides do it today, but people who accept the word, “liberal” should know better if they know anything about history.

  • Jack

    As to your immediate points about states, Barry, process matters in a constitutional democracy. There are rules and procedures on how to get things accomplished. If you see what you think is an injustice, you can’t just try to eradicate it by judicial fiat.

    Put another way, the reason for all the rules and procedures is that the Founders and Framers were trying to protect future generations from tyranny in its many forms. They believed, as Lord Acton said, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They believed that even the most well-meaning of people could not be trusted with too much of it.

  • ben in oakland

    “There’s nothing normal about taking every political disagreement between people and turning it into an all-or-nothing nuclear war, degrading and demonizing people who dare to disagree with you.”

    Jack, you have described antigay Christianity to a T.

  • Jack

    Rondonaghe, you’re assuming he’s cherry-picking prohibitions. Maybe yes, and maybe no.

    If he refused to serve customers whom he knew to be gay, that would be wrong, and in any state in which gay rights are recognized as civil rights, he would be breaking the law as well.

    But refusing to serve a customer because of who he or she is, period, is not the same thing as refusing a particular request by a customer. Anyone can see that the two are not one and the same.

  • Jack

    Ben, I mentioned that in a recent post on this thread — very clearly, in fact. The hatred can be sickening.

    But I’m describing a much broader problem that is not limited to this one issue. On every issue involving historically marginalized people — not just gay people, but women, African Americans, Latino Americans, immigrants, etc — I see the well being poisoned by the language and tactics of the far left. Thus if you disagree with whatever’s being proposed, whether the proposal makes sense or not, you’re never a well-meaning person who just disagrees. You are a racist, a bigot, a nativist, and all the rest, and you deserve to be silenced, ostracized, fired from your job, and ideally fined or jailed if some law can be found to justify it.

  • Jack

    And frankly, a case in point is the response to the op-ed above.

    All she said was that both sides need to show more tolerance — a pretty harmless statement that in prior times would have been seen for what it is, namely a cry for sanity and for people at least to step back from the brink and affirm each other’s humanity and reject the insane political environment we all find ourselves in.

    We’d better listen to people like her in the future if we care about the future of our country, no matter which side we’re on.

    But instead, the response was

  • Jack

    But instead, the response was more of the same….

  • ben in oakland

    Jack, if you are not willing to call the right wing on their demonization tactics, their name calling, their declarations of war, then your point is pointless.

    In 1977, when Miami passed a gay rights ordinance, Anita Bryant started her counter campaign, calling us child molesters and worse. The knowledge that this was untrue was not only available at the time, but made available to her. She just pursued it anyway.

    I have yet to see you call out BQRQ, doc, and BeBrave on their demonization and hate mongering.

  • Jack

    Hmm….Did my post not post? I checked and it did. I condemned such demonization and dehumanization in no uncertain terms and have always done so, long before these boards were in existence. And nobody has to preach to me about demonization and dehumanization of gay people. A number of years ago, I went through the experience of trying to talk someone out of doing harm to himself because of it. Thank God he heard me and others, too.

    But if you’re going to equate any and all opposition to your opinions with demonization and dehumanization, that is where we part company.

  • Ben in oakland

    No Jack I don’t. The only things that I call dehumanization and demonization are the things that people say that aren’t true and intended to dehumanize and demonize gay people.

    I have said this many, many times. Believe whatever you want. I really don’t care. But when you– not you personally, but a generic you– start telling lies about me and mine, when you use the lies you tell yourself as justification for the harm you wish to inflict on gay people, when you insist upon your purely theological concerns holding force of law over the lives of people who don’t share them… And you can expect a very big argument from me.

  • Jack

    No, Ben, not a generic me, either, because on that issue, we’re on the same side — totally.

    Where it appears we part company is in prior posts when you seem to say that anyone who opposes your views on gay marriage or on bakeries and the like is in the same boat as some drooling bigot who equates gay people with child molesters, etc. If that’s not what you’re saying, then good. But sometimes it seems that’s exactly what you’re saying.

    There is a darned big difference between some knuckle-dragging cretin who hates gays because they’re different and because he’s insecure of his own sexuality and a serious Christian who has gay friends and who is simply trying his best to live out his faith in a way that honors both them and it in an honest way. We are talking about two completely different worlds of thinking and feeling.

  • Larry

    Stop acting like segregationists then. You guys are taking your cues from them, even using the exact same arguments. The shoe fits whether you like it or not.

    You guys even want to create a situation which necessitates publishing books in order to tell the targets of discrimination which vendors they can frequent and which ones they can’t.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

    Bigots who want their views given color of law tend to act in similar fashion. Changing the nature of their prejudices changes little. More things change the more they stay the same.

  • Larry

    Why won’t I tolerate your desire to discriminate against people under color of law? Because I just disagree with your ideas? Really?

    Its because your view is flat out repugnant and immoral. I don’t have to tolerate it. It is inhumane, immoral and is irrational. Such ideas attack the very nature of what is best in our society. Its a wrong which requires more than mere disagreement.

  • Jack

    Larry, that’s the difference between my view and yours.

    My view accepts and allows dissent. Your view crushes it.

    My view would arrest, fine, or jail nobody for exercising their First Amendment rights. Your view would do all of this and more.

    My view asserts that human conscience trumps the dictates of the state. Your view demands that people be made to violate their conscience in service to the state.

    My view represents the traditions and practices of the country that raised me and to which I owe everything. Your view represents a betrayal of your country and all that it gave you.

    My view represents the views of prisoners of conscience all over the world. Your view represents the thugs and despots who keep them imprisoned.

    My view is the future. Yours is dredged up from humanity’s dark and ignoble past.