• Lewis C

    Jesus said, “Take up your cross and follow me.”

    After all this debate and all the changes, there are clearly two kinds of people:

    1) Those who take up their cross and are following Jesus and His teaching.

    2) Those who clearly think Jesus has taken up His cross is following them and their theology.

  • John

    David – this articles seems to ascribe to the Rodney King philosophy, “can’t we all just get along?” I appreciate the civil words and endorse them, but society won’t follow you down this road. Lawsuits will abound and hate speech on both sides will be prolific. Per the first three scenarios in your article, are you including local churches in religious employers? Do you, thus, see churches becoming legitimate targets of lawsuits claiming discrimination, possibly leading to prosecution under the law? Are you in favor of such a scenario for non-affirming/non-complying churches?

  • Aristotles

    This is why Christianity, bad on many levels, has survived so long – it’s adaptable. Coming out of an Hellenic mindset, it concedes the existence of a world outside itself. It learned to think, it learned to play well with others.

    But Fundamentalist Christianity (which is virtual Judaism, not Christianity at all) is the rigid opposite. It allows no world outside itself, no law can be which isn’t “of God”, and no one who disagrees can be allowed to be left alone. Islam has a similar issue as well.

  • Larry

    Still very much missing the point and dealing with strawman situations.
    #1 concerning religious employers. The real issue we are seeing is not them being compelled to hire people (good luck trying to enforce something like that). Its firing those employees they already have for being in a gay marriage.

    #2 concerning adoption agencies, the real issue is whether they get government assistance, not whether they are licensed. Sectarian adoption agencies are common and have long had a right to discriminate against customers. What they don’t have is a right to do so with government money.

    #3 A call for more tolerance of those who want religious excuses for discriminatory behavior, FTS! Why should the rest of the nation show more willingness to compromise and accommodate to people who gave none nor sought any?

    A full rebuttal to such calls is in the link below.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/excommunications/2015/07/when-the-hateful-accuse-us-of-hatefulness/

  • Larry

    “But Fundamentalist Christianity (which is virtual Judaism, not Christianity at all)”

    That is pretty insulting to most of Judaism. Most of that faith has already resolved such issues.

    Fundamentalists of any religion are an insufferable bunch be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish or any other. They can’t get along with others and seek to impose their beliefs on everyone by coercion.

  • Jim

    Jesus was very compassionate. Jesus showed compassion without compromising the truth. Followers of Jesus will also need to show compassion without compromising the truth. It takes a lot of wisdom to do that.

  • MrTerry

    Nice article….completely agree…It is better for LGBT couples to look for business services that embrace their union….better to celebrate the anniversary of your wedding than the anniversary of your lawsuit…Those businesses opposing need to try harder with the compassion thing….I honestly believe, even though tensions are high, this too will pass with some unexpected amazing outcome…That’s how God rolls…We will find away through God to come together….Thanks for the article I needed it today….I was feeling a little bitter about the subject…My frustration is not over marriage…it’s a concern….but from the pressing issue that I want to be saved…but by a pastor & church who does not find my existence despicable ….being saved is the event I hold as my special day….but living in a rural area and raised SB…I will have to step outside the denomination and country by 65 miles were I know no one…that’s not special…not understanding the pushback from…

  • Larry

    How about instead of expecting the general public to navigate through a sea of malicious prejudices (which are violations of anti-discrimination laws in various places), store owners need simply to grow the hell up and serve the general public. The rest of the world doesn’t have to work around their petty bigotry. This nation had enough of “separate but equal” public accommodations. No need to go back to that.

    If those store owners are too afraid the acts of general commerce compromise their delicate religious sensibilities, then they need not do business to the general public. This is why you have things like private membership clubs and limited directed marketing.

  • If only the US Supreme Court used the words “Civil-Union” instead of “Marriage,” yes, equality-among-all civil-people is the agreed-upon desired goal, however, the term “Marriage” is reserved only for Religions and it is not for the State to potentially and inadvertently impose upon the Church an otherwise up-ended social-value.

    We’re currently living in an ironic state of social-change where symbols of past racism are (finally) coming down and equality issues extending beyond racism are still being pushed forward. This may parallel how society itself may be approaching what Apostle Paul describes to the Galatians “… neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female …” as the state of equality in the Church in Christ.

    How we react to constant-change is also very much a part of the process – reactive legalism or forward-moving acceptance through grace, only stopping at a certain level of legal-conformity to perhaps solidify social-norms at a certain level.

  • Ben in oakland

    Mr. Gushee, it’s VERY difficult to address this in 1000 characters.

    It’s VERY telling that these issues come up almost exclusively when it is gay people that are the “problem” for the believers. The question I ask repeatedly is why they have no problem serving people that reject the entirety of their religious belief– atheists, demon worshipping hindus, Buddhists whose gods change geographically? Yet serving gay people is a crisis of belief and conscience.

    Several years ago, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana judge, refused to marry an interracial couple, citing his religious beliefs. He was forced to resign. Here’s what Gov. Jindal said about him: “What he did was clearly wrong and this resignation was long overdue.” Yet Jindal’s recent executive order on “religious freedom” seemed to have severe amnesia about that situation.

    As for religious adoption agencies. CSS of Boston closed its doors rather than allow gay people to adopt– WITHOUT STATE MONEY.

    to be cont’d.

  • Ben in oakland

    Yet a Mormon adoption agency that does not take state money can discriminate at will, and the state of Massachusetts doesn’t care.

    There are a number of easy solutions, completely legal, to this phony dilemma, starting with the simplest: “I’m sorry. we’re booked for your date. Why don’t you call so-and-so.” But no! They MUST proclaim their self righteousness and their intention to discriminate– BUT ONLY FOR GAY PEOPLE. Very telling indeed.

    As a gay man, I refuse to give money to antigay bigots if I can possibly avoid it. But I live in San Francisco. I haven’t even heard of one vendor either stupid or impolite enough to pull out the “oh, my poor conscience” canard. What about the gay couple that lives 100 miles away from a vendor, travels that distance, and is told, “WE don’t serve your kind here.”

    I’d suggest these vendors learn some good business sense, and stop exercising either religious exceptionalism or to be rewarded for being poor business people.

  • Ben in oakland

    “”the term “Marriage” is reserved only for Religions.”

    That is simply NOT true, and is an insult to atheists, who can get married, and all of those religions that have no problem with their gay parishioners getting married. If you actually believe what you say about Apostle Paul, then you should have no problem with this.

    It is religious exceptionalism rearing its ugly head once again. “We’re exceptional. We can do what we want.” You want a special term for your religious marriages? How about jiggery pokery, argle bargle, or applesauce?

    Civil marriage has been the law in most of the civilized world for at least 200 years. Religion is completely, totally, optional.

  • MrTerry

    I do not believe he public will have to navigate…It’s only been a couple of weeks since SCOTUS ruling that granted marriage equality in all 50 states…With the controversy will come support and opportunity..by the time the new phone books come out, websites updated people will know who to use…Most wedding service businesses operate by word of mouth…service friendly places will make themselves known…Quite frankly, any service I would want to hire to do the food for my “gay wedding” that me and my guest are going to eat…I want to know those businesses are… all about my moment….I do not want to spend my wedding day second guessing the food and putting up with attitude….It’s very unproductive to walk around looking for people to sue…If you do encounter businesses that you feel are violating legal rights or laws call the proper state agency file a complaint and move on….A lot of life can be wasted in court suing over these type of issues….Trust me, I know.

  • Larry

    Completely untrue. Even as the SCOTUS decision was being deliberated upon, various conservative states started drafting laws to permit legalized discrimination in public accommodations under the pretense of “religious freedom”.

    It would be best if people could transact business, open to the public, without having to deal with the personal bigotry of its owners. There would be no need for lawsuits if people didn’t think their religious based bigotry entitled them to special privileges under the law.

    If businesses no longer feel safe to be openly discriminatory in their behavior, nobody will be “looking over their shoulder”. Customers will just naturally assume they are being treated like every other customer.

  • “Is it not possible to come to an accommodation with one another in community? Can we not flex a bit to learn how to accept conscientious differences of conviction?” No, not with closed minds. To “get along” we have to open our minds and release our differences. http://thelastwhy.ca/poems/2015/6/25/life-a-reaction-to-the-void

  • MrTerry

    How are those businesses that took a stance to assert their selective religious freedoms doing today?

  • Paul

    Did not St. Paul have a vested interest in banning lawsuits in the Christian community?

    Acts 8:1-3

    ‘ Saul agreed to Stephen being killed. .. Saul made much trouble for the church people. He went into every house, pulled out men and women, and put them into prison. ‘

  • MrTerry

    I do want to point out that the facts in the cake scandal have been skewed to the [cake bakers] favor….The [cake bakers] shared the [wanting a wedding cake] couples personal contact information on the [cake bakers] Facebook page….a common intimidation tactic ….which allowed discriminating people to send them death threats. The [wanting a wedding cake] couple feared that they would lose custody of their foster children thanks to the steady stream of harassment from prejudice people who viewed the [cake bakers] as victims of some sort of anti-Christian sentiment. This was found by the court to be harassment and that is why they are having to pay a lot of money…..They claimed religious liberty but what they intentionally did was far from anything I would consider Christian..They intended the [wanting a wedding cake] couple and their family harm. In my opinion [the cake bakers] are, justly, reaping the crop of their vindictive action.

  • Theophilus

    “If I were pastor to a troubled small business owner, I would suggest a different way of looking at the situation. To serve the neighbor is not to endorse the neighbor. Why not make the best cake you ever made, offering love and care to your customer to the best of your ability?”

    Very little discussion has centered on the spiritual calculus involved in making a stand based on conscience. Two persons can have equally strong convictions that homosexual marriage is wrong — yet one could gladly bake the cake and the other one would be dying inside if forced to so. And perhaps the person who could gladly bake the cake — safely tucked away in her own bake shop — would be reduced to tears and self-loathing if forced to coach the happy gay couple as they pose for pictures.

    In the past the Court has not assumed that it had the omniscience needed to know a legitimate cry of conscience from a false one, and I think we will all be be better off if it retains its humility in this regard.

  • Mark

    Ben, this is one of the best comments I’ve EVER read on the internet, and your Scalia line generated a genuine LOL. Thank you.

  • Doc Anthony

    “So when you hear the music,” said Mr. Nebuchadnezzar with a wink and a smile, “you Christians just bow down in front of that golden statue over there, and then you can go back to doing your thing.

    “Believe whatever you want, teach or preach whatever you want, but first you MUST take a minute to bow down in front of that golden statue. Period.

    “Resistance is futile. We won. Surrender already. No need for any Christian civil disobedience on YOUR part, no need for any stressful church debates about that gay marriage stuff. Most of all, no need for US to smash your small businesses, your livelihoods, (and ultimately your churches’ tax-exemptions), in vicious vengeful reprisals. Capiche?

    “So be cool, be clever. Just finesse it like Baylor did. You Christians are good at finesse.

    “But first, you go bow down to that golden statue, then you can spin it in whatever way,” the dominant king said with a wink and a smile. “Can’t we all just get along?”

  • Shawnie5

    “If I were pastor to a troubled small business owner, I would suggest a different way of looking at the situation. To serve the neighbor is not to endorse the neighbor. Why not make the best cake you ever made, offering love and care to your customer to the best of your ability?”

    And if I were one you parishioners I would privately and respectfully suggest that you consider Paul’s warning: “And when you sin against other believers by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.”. 1 Cor.8:12.

  • Greg J

    #3 FTS! WHY? I enjoy your comments and generally agree with your observations. When it comes to some beliefs I think we have come to different conclusions. I do think we share this concern. I’m weary of anyone who wants to influence beleifs and create laws that mandate the belief. If you want people to believe this new law is good I don’t think it will come by suit. It is the same for religious beleif, if you find my religious beleif good you will not need a law to agree with it. Like civil rights, law was changed in the courtroom but opinions were changed by how people lived. I find what I beleive to be reasonable, reasonable enough to be believable without the threat of suit on my part.

  • bqrq

    “……There would be no need for lawsuits if people didn’t think their religious based bigotry entitled them to special privileges under the law…..”

    As parents who love their children, it is important to point out that our natural instinct to protect our children from child molesters is not “bigotry” but rather a normal expression of the abiding love we have for our family.

  • Ben in oakland

    From everything I can see, very few of the people who makes claims of their conscience being violated in this particular matter would know the difference between a legitimate cry of conscience and a false one.

    As I said, it is VERY telling that the only place this ever seems to show up is when a certain class of so called Christian is required to treat gay people the same as all of the other people they believe are going to burn in hell forever.

    Witness the four times married Kentucky clerk whose ever so delicate conscience refuses to fill out the paperwork for gay couples there.

  • ben in oakland

    Well, jack, here he is again, doing the same thing that just the other day he apologized for, and which you were so quick to accept as being sincere.

  • Ben in okaland

    Well, thank you mark. I assure you I am blushing as I read this.

    Ben

  • Be Brave

    Mr. Gushee,

    I accused you of being a gay activist in my last posts to you. You proved my charges were reality based. Your article here is as creepy as it gets. Christians, that live as Jesus instructed and the Apostles preached and taught as well, you simply want outlawed.

    Baylor did exactly what I urged my Church and the Christian School attached to it. No need to EVER mention anti-Christian sexual acts at all. Just teach what Christian life is and let others reject that of they want to.

    There is no justification to affirm any sexual behavior outside of Christian marriage.

    If you think that majority pop culture is going to take over Christian truth, your false teachings show that you have a demon writing for you. What Paul calls powers and principalities.

  • Susan

    bqrq, Gay men and Lesbians are not child molesters. They have relationships with consenting adults.

    Artistotles, you are showing your ignorance of Judaism. Jews, even the most Ultra-Orthodox, are not fundamentalists. At least if you mean they read the Hebrew Bible literally. Jews have centuries of Midrash, Torah commentaries and Talmud that interpret and explain the Torah. They don’t read the Bible without them. For the non-Orthodox, which is the majority of American Jews, they continue this process today. My rabbis says that if you are reading the Hebrew Bible by yourself, you should be arguing with yourself. That is why all non-Orthodox Jewish denominations ordain gay men and women and rabbis and cantors and allow their rabbis to marry gay and lesbian couples.

  • ben in oakland

    Other than the two times I have found myself agreeing with you, nothing you say is reality based. Given your propensity to lie about and slander those whom you disagree with, per Corinthians 6, you are not Christ based, either.

  • ben in oakland

    Don’t worry about BQ. He is obsessed with the subject of children and sex, especially gay sex. Trying to convince him of anything that doesn’t conform either to his bias or his sexual obsessions is a waste of your time and precious electrons.

  • Susan

    Ben, your right. I just can’t help it. I keep hoping I will get through to him.

    Artistotles, you don’t end one prejudice by falling back an another prejudice. This is not the first time that posters here on RNS have fallen back to classic anti-Judaism to promote gay rights. This is not helpful.

  • larry

    The point is nobody has to live according to the religious beliefs of others. We would never have civil liberties if we waited for popular opinion to catch up with legal decisions. People who want to discriminate, want to maintain their power to do so. As they continue to do so now. Public opinion changes slowly once people realize they can’t legally act upon their prejudices.

    The conservative Christians lost their privilege of imposing their beliefs on civil laws when SCOTUS struck down the gay marriage bans. There is no need for a consolation prize of allowing them to impose their beliefs further by permitting them to legally discriminate in public accomodations.

    There is nothing reasonable about using religious beliefs to create segregated marketplaces. The conservative christians were not looking for accomodation and reasonable co-existence when they had political power to wield. When were they reasonable? Never. No need to return a favor never extended.

  • “How are those businesses that took a stance to assert their selective religious freedoms doing today? ”

    Well you have the Memories Pizza scam which raked in hundreds of thousands of $ on hysterical bigots. Several store owners are making a good deal of money on the right wingnut lecture circuit. Its been more profitable t be a spokesperson for discrimination than to run a small business.

    They have the ear of several state chief executives and legislatures, despite “big business” largely opposing such ideas. Mini-RFRA laws are popping up all over the place. Several state governors issued executive orders protecting those who wish to discriminate. Its an interesting disconnect between conservative politics and their biggest support.

    Discriminatory businesses claiming to be bulled aren’t worth an ounce of sympathy. When you publicly declare your animosity to people, it is natural to see it returned in kind.

  • Not when you are looking to find ways to discriminate against others under the color of law. Conservative Christians are not really asking for accommodation, they just want to find a new way to discriminate. Their request is bullcrap.

  • If they want to exercise their alleged conscience, they can take their business out of the “public square” are serve their fellow “non-sinning” customers to their heart’s content.

    But nobody else has to tolerate such malicious nonsense in public accommodations.

  • Shorter bqrq: child molestation fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap

  • Dominic

    Religious schools would contradict themselves if they allowed the openly sinful to be employed there. They teach one way, yet act another? . We see almost daily now that teachers having “consensual” sex with a student is fired. Why should a private religious school employ an openly homosexual teacher? There are plenty of schools to apply to, why target a place when you know there is a conflict of outlook?
    Businesses should have no law discriminating against gays, married gays, etc., for they are part of the common population and their personal behavior is irrelevant to the work they can do. The “I don’t like you” approach is wrong.

    As to adoption centers turning away gays, you have to remember an innocent person is involved, a person dependent on the informed decision of an adult as to what’s best for him/her. A mother/father placement is probably the best environment for the child to cope with his already disrupted life.

  • Scott Williams

    It’s really not a good idea to write a column about “all those lawsuits” and then tell us at the end that you don’t want to get into the details and will leave it to the lawyers. An alternative approach would be to educate yourself and understand what the law is. It really isn’t that complicated. The most important point of all: None of the things you write about – florists, bakers, accreditation, etc. – has anything to do with marriage law. Marriage law does not provide the basis for any lawsuit and does not deal with college accreditation. Christian leaders decided to use a tiny number of discrimination lawsuits – filed under statutes which are unrelated to marriage law – and exploit them in their deranged crusade against gay marriage. Shame on them for lying and on you for perpetuating their lie.

    As for your closing paragraph on lawsuits, I look forward to the post where you make the same point to Black people and Jewish people and women subjected to sexual…

  • MrTerry

    I know of 2 businesses that profited from their stance. 1 being a pizza restaurant that I think it is safe to say met their demise by offering their opinion publically but America’s business community got a look at what can happen by making your views public through your business name. The bakery, an appalling display of lies and greed. To assume the country is going to continue to give money to businesses much longer for making bad choices is unlikely. The area I live businesses that did not make the national news but posted “No Gays Allowed” signs in their windows took them down within 48 hours because they were losing business. The community did not want to trade with a business being so controversial. States that have amended their religious freedom acts have again amended after controversy. The few states that have passed laws to relieve civil servants of their taxpayer funded duties are almost bankrupt. I am hopeful those governors will not be reelected.

  • MrTerry

    To reply to your first paragraph. Your attitude is why the federal government had to develope the Civil Rights Act. The same argument was made by religious leaders against, African Americans, Jewish Americans, women. I can remember a time when the exact argument was made against African Americans that wanted to move into certain neighborhoods and were told that there were plenty of other neighborhoods for “people like them” It is discrimination to deny people income, housing, etc. because of who they are. Orientation is not part of the Civil Rights Act, YET, but we are working on it.

    As to your second paragraph your view is absolutely unfounded that a same sex couple is less equipped to give the same nurturing environment to a child as a opposite sex couple. The responsibilities of 2 adults is not determined by gender.

  • Theophilus

    “The question I ask repeatedly is why they have no problem serving people that reject the entirety of their religious belief– atheists, demon worshipping hindus, Buddhists whose gods change geographically? Yet serving gay people is a crisis of belief and conscience.”

    Serving gay people should not in general pose a problem of conscience for a Christian. A Christian should treat all people with kindness and respect. But marriage is a special case. Some may feel they cannot in good conscience participate in a gay marriage. I think it is akin to a Jewish printer refusing to print up flyers for an antisemitic march, or a Hispanic politico refusing to help Donald Trump out of his current mess.

  • Larry

    As Betty Bowers says, “If I discriminate against or criticize you it’s called religious freedom. If you return the favor, it’s called persecution.” 🙂

    http://www.towleroad.com/2015/05/americas-best-christian-mrs-betty-bowers-explains-religious-freedom/

  • Larry

    “Serving gay people should not in general pose a problem of conscience for a Christian. A Christian should treat all people with kindness and respect. But marriage is a special case.”

    That would be true if they were getting married or officiating a wedding. Selling goods and services and treating gay people like every other customer doesn’t cut it.

    “I think it is akin to a Jewish printer refusing to print up flyers for an antisemitic march, or a Hispanic politico refusing to help Donald Trump out of his current mess.”

    And you would be wrong on both counts. Neither of those attack a certain class of people known for being discriminated against under the color of law. Neither of those would run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

    But its nice to see bad analogy rearing its head again as the primary form of argument for people who find facts on the ground troubling to their arguments.

  • Theophilus

    Interesting. A classic instance of begging the question. I say that a Christian not wanting to be involved in a gay marriage is analogous to a Jew not wanting to print flyers for antisemites, and you respond by saying that the Jew in this scenario who refused services to an antisemite would not run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. Which is my very point: Christians who refuse to participate in gay weddings should likewise not run afoul of anti-discrimination laws — whether or not in fact they currently do.

  • Ben in oakland

    So all you are saying is that you are able to draw your line so carefully and in such a way as to exclude gay people, and include the worshipers of demons, and idolaters, and of no God all.

    Situation one: a cake baker, a florist or venue owner provide services for idolaters, demon worshipers, or people who reject all religious belief. The venue owner, for example, stands at the back of his venue watching the demons and false gods be invoked. He is not participating in their sin, or so he says.

    Situation to: a cake baker, a florist or venue owner provide services for a Christian gay couple getting married. The venue owner, for example, stands at the back of his venue, watching the Christian marriage ceremony. He is participating in Their sin, or so you say.

    Amazing, as I said, how easy it is to draw the line so that your prejudices are supported.

  • Ben in oakland

    As usual, it’s far easier to ignore reality in favor of your ideology that it is reconcile your ideology to reality.

    For so many adopted kids, the choice is not between two parents of the opposite sex and two parents of the same sex, but between two parents of the same sex and no parents at all. In any case, there is a reason why so many children need to be adopted.

    It is because their two opposite sex parents for so many adopted kids, the choice is not between two parents of the opposite sex and two parents of the same sex, but between two parents of the same sex and no parents at all. In any case, there is a reason why so many children need to be adopted or placed into foster care:

    Their highly suitable, wonderfully holy heterosexual parents were unable to care for them, unwilling to care for them, incapable of caring for them, or physically abusive, sexually abusive, drug addicted,

  • Theophilus

    Well I’ll agree with you that Ms Bowers is wrong if you agree with me that merely believing that gay marriage is wrong doesn’t make one a bigot. There is abuse of language on both sides of this.

  • Garson Abuita

    No Theophilus, being an antisemite or holding odious political views does not put you in a protected class. In any event, printing the flyers would involve forced-speech issues that do not arise in the baker/florist cases (they might potentially arise in the photographer cases).

  • Theophilus

    @Garson – So is that the legal reason why one can be sued for not baking a cake for a gay wedding? Because gays are a protected class? If so, does it follow that a gay photographer could refuse to do a heterosexual wedding with no legal repercussions?

    I am not asking these questions in a hostile manner — I’m really just curious.

  • ben in oakland

    I can agree that “disagreeing with gay marriage” doesn’t make you a bigot.

    If you’ll agree that when you claim that my marriage harms yours, that should be denied marriage because your version of god says that I’m a sinner, that my marriage is an attack on marriage, faith, family, freedom and morality, that my family and children are just not as important as those of a thrice married fornicating adulterous former republican congressman, that god will punish millions of innocent people if my marriage goes forward, that my children are endangered because of my marriage, that my ability to be a good parent is negated by the fact that I’m gay, that your minister or church will be forced to marry us and will give up all first amendment rights, that Christians are and will be persecuted if my marriage is legal, that NO TRUE CHREISTIAN could ever support my marriage, that my religious freedom doesn’t matter, and on and on and on and on……..

    ARE BIGOTRY.

    Will that be a good…

  • ben in oakland

    @Theophilus

    “So is that the legal reason why one can be sued for not baking a cake for a gay wedding? Because gays are a protected class?” In 21 states, yes. In 29 states, except for counties and cities that enact sexual orientation protections, NO.

    “If so, does it follow that a gay photographer could refuse to do a heterosexual wedding with no legal repercussions?” The same answer is true. But as a wedding photographer for 30 years, I can’t imagine it would ever happen. Except….

    There were all kinds of people whose weddings I would not do– because I thought they would be trouble, because I didn’t like them, because they wanted a prime date like Labor day weekend, but didn’t want to spend, because I didn’t like the rules of their church regarding photography, because I thought their pastor was a real butthead.

    But one of those reasons are actionable under any non-discrimination law.