Missouri filibuster ends on bill deemed anti-gay

Print More
Missouri State Capitol building in Jefferson City, Mo.

By Katherine Dowler, via Wikimedia Commons

Missouri State Capitol building in Jefferson City, Mo.


(RNS) A controversial bill that provides greater protections to faith groups and businesses whose religious beliefs would prevent them from serving gay people advanced in the Missouri Senate after Republicans ended a marathon filibuster that lasted more than 36 hours.

The bill, known as Senate Joint Resolution 39, passed on Wednesday (March 9) 21-11 after the GOP senators broke the Democrat-led filibuster using a procedural move, according to media reports from Jefferson City, the state capitol.

Missouri State Capitol building in Jefferson City, Mo.

By Katherine Dowler, via Wikimedia Commons

Missouri State Capitol building in Jefferson City, Mo.

A final vote is expected Thursday and then the measure moves to the House for further action. If approved by both houses, it would go before the voters for approval as an amendment to the state constitution.

The Missouri proposal is the latest in a series of measures introduced around the country by conservatives in reaction to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court legalization of same-sex marriage.

The proposed amendment would prohibit the state from penalizing “a religious organization on the basis that the organization believes or acts in accordance with a sincere religious belief concerning marriage between two persons of the same sex.”

The measure would also protect vendors who refuse to provide services to gay couples, and individuals who decline “to personally be a participant in a wedding or marriage.”

Clergy and places of worship would be protected should they decline to host or perform ceremonies and other services for same-sex couples because of their beliefs.

Opponents said such a change isn’t necessary because it is already unconstitutional to force a religious group to marry a couple. They said the proposed amendment is an overreaction to last year’s high court ruling, and they argue that such laws invite boycotts and hurt local businesses.

But conservatives say such measures are a matter of “commonsense” and religious liberty, as Roger Severino, director of the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, put it.

“Big Business and the cultural left have once again teamed up to try to block popular religious freedom protections,” Severino said.

(David Gibson is a national reporter for RNS)

  • Pingback: Missouri filibuster ends on bill deemed anti-gay - mosaicversemosaicverse()

  • Pingback: Missouri filibuster ends on bill deemed anti-gay | Christian News Agency()

  • G Key

    A lot of backside-covering feel-good euphemisms in this article:

    “provides greater protections to faith groups…”
    (provides thicker cover to mean-spirited disrespectful self-exalters…)

    “…and businesses…”
    (…and entities that aren’t even people, let alone believers…)

    “…whose religious beliefs would prevent them from serving gay people”
    (…whose religious beliefs don’t call them out for mistreating people whose lives are none of their business)

    “…protect vendors who refuse to provide services to gay couples,…”
    (…protect vendors who think it’s OK to disrespect people based on their bedroom activities, of all things…)

    “…and individuals who decline ‘to personally be a participant in a wedding or marriage.’ ”
    (and individuals who find virtue in abusing others)
    [BTW, the adverb in question is “professionally”, not “personally”, considering they’re not “personally” invited. Then again, they’re not acting professionally, either…

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Newt Gingrich twice divorced a sick wife so he could marry his mistress, but he claims he’s “defending the sanctity of marriage.” Anita Bryant claimed she wanted to “save the children,” but her allies have attacked the children of same gender parents.

    We can’t expect anti-gays to admit they want to attack LGBT Americans. Anti-gays have a 50 year history of lying.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    We know this “Attack the gays” bill will be revoked by the courts–but only after anti-gays flush many millions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet.

    When are anti-gays going to stop demanding taxpayers–even LGBT taxpayers–finance their agenda to subvert the United States Constitution and hurt LGBT Americans and their children?

  • shawnie5

    The Missouri bill is a perfect example of the kind of very narrowly-tailored and specific religious freedom exemptions that most Americans are fine with in these situations.

    Anyone who has a problem with this doesn’t have nearly enough to worry about.

    And anyone who thinks LGBT Americans and “their children” are going to be “hurt” by an ever so slight reduction in the choice of cakes and posies to choose from has a screw loose somewhere.

    Kwitcher whining and get a life, people!

  • yoh

    The bill is designed specifically to enable discrimination in open commerce against gay’s by malicious Christian types. The 1st amendment already provides ample protection for religious liberties for individuals. Anyone who thinks segregation in the marketplace is not harmful is a 1iar and a bigot.

    You admit the purpose of the law is to deny commercial activity to gays. Separate but equal seems to be your motto.

    Plus since everyone including yourself acknowledge this is meant to discriminate against gay’s in commerce, it will result in major losses of revenue for the state. All because hateful small business people wanted an excuse to treat guys badly.

  • G Key

    “Anyone who has a problem with this doesn’t have nearly enough to worry about.”

    “LGBT Americans and ‘their children’ are going to be ‘hurt’ by an ever so slight reduction in the choice of cakes and posies”

    Translation: “C’mon, we only wanna hurt ’em just a little…”
    Who’s whining now?

  • Todd

    The provision of flowers or photos simply does not represent an endorsement of gay marriage. This is legislation which would plainly create distinctions between gay and straight marriages in an effort to reduce the value and validity of the former.

    If Missouri lawmakers want to allow discrimination against LBGT individuals, then why not allow it — PROVIDING the buisness posts a sign by the front door in capital letters at least three inches high which says, “WE ARE BIGOTS. If You Support Equal Rights For All Please Buy Elsewhere.”

    There. That seems fair.

  • DougH

    Absolutely right. The last poll I saw on the question of whether a wedding photographer should have the right to refuse to work for a revisionist marriage, 85% said “Yes.” That number held steady for sex and race, though when it came to political parties “only” 77% of Democrats agreed.

  • G Key

    What does it say about a small minority of believers who claim their religion says it’s OK to create laws that give them special protection to deliberately demean and deny strangers and their children?

    Especially when the great majority of believers in that very same religion believe that intentionally mistreating other people is wrong?

    Where’s the morality in faithfully abusing others when your own faith isn’t even settled on the morality of abusing others?

  • Ben in oakland

    It’s your usual thinking, Shawnie. If the same treatment were applied to so called Christians, we would hear no end of the screaming about how mean everyone is being.

    Special rights for Christians– the very same special rights that special Christians claim gay people are demanding.

    How about this? they treat gay people exactly the same as they treat all of the other people that they sincerely and religiously believe are going to be sent to burn in hell forever by that just and loving God of yours.

    Or, they could just learn to say, “sorry, I’m booked. Why don’t you call so and so?”

    Or, you can stop trying to reward people’s failures to be polite, to be competent business people, or to keep their religion to themselves.

  • ben in oakland

    “Especially when the great majority of believers in that very same religion believe that intentionally mistreating other people is wrong?”

    But they don’t.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Where did you see that poll, DougH?

    “Washington (CNN)Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say that businesses that provide wedding-related services should be required to provide those services to same-sex couples in the same way they would all other customers, even if they have religious objections.
    A new CNN/ORC poll finds 57% feel businesses such as caterers or florists should be required to serve gay or lesbian couples just as they would heterosexual couples.”


  • CarrotCakeMan

    “a revisionist marriage”

    DougH has previously posted nasty language in reference to LGBT Americans and same gender married American couples in a shameful attempt to demean, demonize and dehumanize them. Fortunately, in addition to debunking DougH’s claimed “poll,” I can document the result of anti-gay Hate Speech:

    “Sixty percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on its constitutionality next month. This is up from 55% last year and is the highest Gallup has found on the question since it was first asked in 1996.”


  • CarrotCakeMan

    Ben is 100% correct. Anti-gays have finally figured out Americans are all onto the anti-gay agenda to attack LGBT Americans is all about granting anti-gays a special right to ignore the Law. Their response is a desperate attempt to “project” their own intent to hurt LGBT Americans onto their intended LGBT victims by falsely claiming “victim status.”

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Ben, as much as I resent anti-gays trying to subvert the United States Constitution this way, and I criticize Christians who disagree with anti-gays but say nothing, you should see this:

    “”More than six in ten (62 percent) white mainline Protestants support same-sex marriage. Among white mainline Protestant denominations, support ranges from 69 percent support among white mainline Presbyterians and 68 percent among both white Episcopalians and white Congregationalists/United Church of Christ members, to lower support among white mainline Baptists (53 percent) and white mainline Church of Christ/Disciples (50 percent).

    And while the Catholic Church officially opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage, about six in ten white (61 percent), Hispanic (60 percent), and other non-white Catholics (60 percent) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. A majority of orthodox Christians (56 percent) also support same-sex marriage.


  • CarrotCakeMan

    “The most supportive major religious groups are Buddhists (84 percent), Jews (77 percent), and Americans who select “Other religion” (75 percent); additionally, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of the religiously unaffiliated also support same-sex marriage.”


  • Shawnie5

    The purpose it to protect the religious freedom of those who do not wish to participate in same-sex WEDDINGS for religious reasons.

    Cake, posies, pictures. Period. My goodness, what egregious harm!

    Evidently “insurance in some capacity” doesn’t give you nearly enough to do.

  • yoh

    Discrimination in commerce is not religious freedom. Try again. You admitted the effect and intent is to deny service to gay customers in various businesses entirely on religious based bigotry. Nobody is fooled into thinking this really has to do with religious freedom.

    It’s just a little bit of malicious segregation, what gives? You do not require protection of law for your harmful prejudice based trespasses to others.

  • shawnie5

    Nobody wants to hurt them. They’re the ones trying to force everyone to play tea party with them or else, including those who happily played tea party until it turned into a wedding party.

  • shawnie5

    “Nobody is fooled into thinking this really has to do with religious freedom.”

    It is quite obvious that it is about religious freedom, since most (and indeed probably all) of those who have had such freedom attacked have willingly and happily served gays in other contexts besides weddings. Which is why this kind of tantrumming never came up until SSM was a thing.

  • Garson Abuita

    Shawnie, my sense is that most Americans at least are ok with bona fide religious organizations (as opposed to the “Christian heating and plumbing company” in a recent Pennsylvania case) being exempted from suffering tax, zoning, government contracts, etc. penalties for their views on same-sex marriage. This is because, regardless of individual views on SSM, many Americans are members of churches that oppose it. They might disagree with the Catholic Church on many things but they don’t want it shut down.
    The problem is with the wedding vendors, who are not religious organizations as defined by the bill, being allowed to refuse services to couples. There’s also a federal constitutional problem by protecting certain kinds of religious beliefs — those concerning same-sex marriage, but not concerning inter-racial, -ethnic or -religious couples.

  • yoh

    It’s quite obvious the bill is for legalized discrimination. Even you admitted that much. Hence the whole “it’s no big deal argument”. Calling it religious belief does not make it acceptable or any less harmful.

    Wedding business people don’t need protection of law for malicious and bigoted actions. Discrimination is discrimination.

  • yoh

    Bullsh1t. It’s all about attacking gays in the most public and obnoxious ways possible. There is no such thing as well intentioned discrimination. It’s an attempt to demean, insult and harm those on the receiving end.

  • shawnie5

    “If the same treatment were applied to so called Christians, we would hear no end of the screaming about how mean everyone is being.”

    I think not, Ben. If anyone did not want to participate in my wedding for conscience reasons, I would be very grateful for their candor so that I could procure an assistant who could provide more enthusiastic and quality service.

    I knew a photographer once who would not do any weddings which he knew were second marriages. I never knew of anyone who took any particular offense over it, and he was certainly never sued; in fact, he had more business than he could handle. Were he not retired now he would certainly have nothing to do with any SSM, but would probably get all manner of death threats and harassment over it. What makes the difference?

    The likely reason why your camp is so desperate for approval, and prone to tantrums when it isn’t forthcoming, is that you are insecure about the rightness of your actions.

  • shawnie5

    “…granting anti-gays a special right to ignore the Law.”

    There is no Missouri “Law” on this. Gays are not a specially protected class there.

  • shawnie5

    “The provision of flowers or photos simply does not represent an endorsement of gay marriage.” That all depends on how much the artist is required to be personally involved in the event. A wedding cake purchased in the manner in which we purchased ours (a standard design ordered over the phone from a grocery store bakery) would certainly NOT represent such an endorsement. A photographer, however, is a different matter.

    “PROVIDING the business posts a sign by the front door in capital letters at least three inches high which says, “WE ARE BIGOTS. If You Support Equal Rights For All Please Buy Elsewhere.” OR simply: “Birthdays – Graduations – Traditional Weddings.” I think everyone would get the picture.

  • shawnie5

    Obviously you think that somewhere along the way “discrimination” in the abstract became a more important matter than religious liberty. Which is not surprising coming from an atheist — to you no inconvenience is too small to outweigh something so worthless. However, religious liberty is why this country was founded, and is our paramount civil liberty. Some substantial harm SHOULD be demonstrated before it is infringed. In my opinion the Hobby Lobby employees had a far better case; I’d be much more concerned about getting contraception than about getting a cake or a flower — though in a million years I’d never violate anyone’s conscience to get either one.

  • shawnie5

    As I’ve explained to you before, “nuh-uh” isn’t a rebuttal.

  • shawnie5

    Garson, there is no connection between religion and opposition to inter-racial marriage. It can not be found in any scripture. It is a social taboo that some very awkwardly tried to attach to religiosity during a particular time in our history — in much the same way that some today are trying to attach ssm affirmation to scripture. There is simply no connection. Therefore no true religious liberty issue was presented when the 14th Amendment very specifically prohibited racial discrimination.

    The same can not be said for SSM. The entire reason why the western world repudiated same-sex behavior for nearly two-thousand years is because of the Old and New Testaments. One can not seriously argue that it is a not a religious question.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Sorry, Shawnie, but no matter how many times you spam this board with the deception that this attack on LGBT Americans is “freedom of religion,” that won’t make that lie become true, or fool even one non-homophobic American. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the convictions of anti-gays who violated laws that forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, making those laws well settled. Denying that anti-gays caused harm, or that their LGBT victims experienced harm, is similarly deceptive and a waste of our time.

  • shawnie5

    RNS did a story on the subject last year. Actually the figure is 57% in favor of wedding-related exemptions:


  • CarrotCakeMan

    Shawnie is simply lying when he claims “Nobody wants to hurt” LGBT Americans. He knows, as we all do, that an anti-gay group, the so-called “Alliance Defending Freedom Of Faith” is inciting anti-gays to attack LGBT Americans. This “Alliance” is traveling through the US to meet with anti-gay church groups to find anti-gay wedding service providers with existing LGBT customer bases. The “Alliance” recruits these anti-gays to attack their LGBT customers with the promise to provide free legal representation and pay all fines and costs.

    One of the clients of this “Alliance,” the Oregon anti-gay Melissa Klein, went so far as to publish the private information of the same gender couple they attacked, including their home address, in an effort to incite a Hate Crime–which did happen to the couple and their child. This is why this anti-gay was fined $135,000.

    Anyone who wants to know the facts can verify the role of this “Alliance” on their own website, where they seek…

  • CarrotCakeMan

    At least you named your source. However, that AP poll is an outlier:

    “Another recent survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center in September of 2014, found Americans more closely divided, with 49 percent saying a business like a caterer or florist should be required to provide wedding services to same-sex couples and 47 percent saying the business should be allowed to refuse service for religious reasons.

    Americans’ support for refusing service, even on religious grounds, may not extend beyond weddings. A May 2014 Public Religion Research Institute survey that did not specifically mention wedding-related businesses found that only 16 percent of Americans said a small business owner should be allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian individuals for religious reasons. Eight in 10 said the business should not be allowed to refuse service.


  • CarrotCakeMan

    It’s true Missouri doesn’t presently protect LGBT Americans against this sort of attack, but the great panic and desperation the “Gay Obsessed Party” representatives there demonstrated by choosing the nuclear option to force the bill suggests they know next year their state legislature won’t be majority GOP.

    Funny, this “state constitutional amendment so it can’t be changed in the future” strategy is what the “Gay Obsessed Party” tried with the 32 state constitutional amendments declaring legal marriage a special right for mixed-sex couples. We know how that worked out.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    “your camp is so desperate for approval, and prone to tantrums”

    Once again, Shawnie has tried to demean, demonize and dehumanize his intended LGBT victims. Fortunately, the Hate Speech anti-gays fling is now having the opposite effect of what they intend. Didn’t the mothers of anti-gays ever tell them the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Didn’t anti-gays realize Americans would sooner or later catch on to their lies?

    None of Shawnie’s anecdotal claims are verifiable, let alone even relevant. The anti-discrimination laws the anti-gay “Alliance Defending Freedom Of Faith” is attacking by inciting criminal activities have been upheld by the US Supreme Court many times. No court will ever fall for Shawnie’s claim that LGBT Americans suffer no injury when attacked by these anti-gay bakers, and that anti-gays are somehow above the Law.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Shawnie is lying. We know the early Church married same gender couples. We know the Bible was intentionally mistranslated at the time of King James because anti-gays wanted to stop King James from being open about his gay sexual orientation. We know many Christian churches reject the homophobic mistranslations and are marrying same gender couples now.

    And “no connection” between miscegenation laws and religion? Deceptive again:

    “The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s 18th-century interpretation of race, wrote:

    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[9]

  • Ben in oakland

    No. They wouldn’t get the picture at all.

    All you are admitting is that the religious bigotry displayed should be downplayed to the point where it isn’t perceived as the bigotry it is.

    The real issue is this. All of the other things you cite that antigay so called Christian people are willing to extend towards gay people are all, every one of them, relatively innocuous. Of course they are willing to sell them a flower arrangement. No big deal.

    But to provide the services for a gay or lesbian wedding means that they would have to see gay people as first human beings, and second as their equals. And that just cannot be.

    Melissa sweet cakes pretty much admitted it. Of course they will provide cakes for divorces, dog weddings, the birth of illegitimate babies, and everything else. bEcuasevthe sin is not the issue. Treating gay people like religious, moral, and human equals is.

    Like civil unions. An admission that we have a claim, but a denial of equality anyway.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Sorry, Shawnie, but the United States Supreme Court, along with the New Mexico State Supreme Court, upheld the conviction of “Photography by Elaine,” even though lawyers from–of course–the “Alliance Defending Freedom Of Faith” made the facetious claim about how “artistic” her work is. Hilariously enough, “Elaine” used to have examples of her work on her website, and they were nothing more than the same cliché wedding pictures anyone can take.

    Nearly ALL bakers in the US use style books and have their customers order from them, just like at the grocery store.

    “Artistic expression” is still no excuse to violate the Law.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Ben, please remember that “Sweet cakes by Melissa” was fined not just for attacking the couple directly, but also because the Kleins posted the private information about the couple and thereby incited someone to commit a Hate Crime against the couple and their child.

  • shawnie5

    Carrot, the issue at hand has never come up before the SCOTUS. Try again.

  • shawnie5

    “This is why this anti-gay was fined $135,000”

    No, it is not. The commissioner’s ruling in that case specifically states that the Kleins’ disclosures did not factor into the damage award and that at least one of the complainants was not a credible witness.

    “…anti-gay wedding service providers with existing LGBT customer bases. ” ROFL! What an admission. Thanks, Carrot. 😀

  • shawnie5

    That’s the whole point, Carrot. Results differ when you move from broadly worded questions to narrow ones.

    BTW, the poll that RNS reported on is more recent than the ones you’ve just mentioned. It seems that support for these exemptions has gone up since SSM became a thing. Probably you bullies are making a bad impression on ordinary citizens who just want the tantrum to go away already so everyone can get on with their lives.

  • shawnie5

    “suggests they know next year their state legislature won’t be majority GOP.” I doubt it. I’ve been there recently and I don’t think the GOP is going away anytime soon.

    “We know how that worked out.” Totally different issue, Carrot. This is a place where the SCOTUS clearly does not want to go.

  • shawnie5

    Exhibit A of my point. Thanks, Carrot.

  • shawnie5

    No more Boswell nonsense, Carrot. Nobody takes him seriously except the desperate.

    And Blumenbach referenced no scripture whatsoever. He pulled his assertions from his posterior and dressed it up in religious language exactly as the ssm-affirmers do. Fail on both counts.

  • Shawnie5

    Carrot, Elane photography claimed protection under New Mexico’s state rfra, which required a government action to be triggered. This one does not. Plus, New Mexico has laws that make gays a protected class. Missouri does not, and that is not going to change anytime soon.

  • Shawnie5

    “But to provide the services for a gay or lesbian wedding means that they would have to see gay people as first human beings, and second as their equals. And that just cannot be.”

    And if that were the case, Ben, they wouldn’t have that “existing LGBT client base” that the Carrot just admitted they had.

    The sad thing is, however, that it matters so much to you how the people you despise “see” you. When you’re confident in your own skin and your own integrity, such a thing never even factors into your life.

  • Re: “I knew a photographer once who would not do any weddings which he knew were second marriages.”

    That’s interesting. How could he police that? A couple might pose as never-previously-married, and unless he had inside knowledge about them and their histories, he might never know any differently. So, he could end up photographing their wedding.

    If that happened … and for all we know, it might have! … how would he have been damaged by it? What harm could befall him, because of it? I’m trying to figure out the mechanism here.

  • shawnie5

    Of course, he might not know. He only refused if he did know. We can only work with what we know.

    It’s the same kind of situation that 1st century Christians found themselves in wrt food offered in pagan worship. Paul’s advice to them was to simply accept whatever was offered or sold to them and only abstain if the meat was known to be sacrificial or someone pointed out that it was — that way they could avoid the appearance of condoning or participating in something morally objectionable, which was the crux of the difficulty.

    There’s not much leeway of this sort, however, when you have to actually be present at a same-sex wedding, or put little same-sex figurines on a wedding cake, etc, you see. It’s obvious to everyone what you’re participating in. That’s why sometimes a baker or a florist is morally compromised here, sometimes not — but a photographer always is.

  • Ben in oakland

    And thank you for demonstrating the attitude that I was describing. It’s funny, but I was thinking of our many previous encounters on this very subject as I wrote. Your belief on your own superiority has always been obvious. When I called you on it once, you said to prove it. I did, by quoting you directly and pointing out a number of instances. When you didn’t respond, I pointed it out. Your response was that it wasn’t important bough for you to waste your precious time with.

    There must be something wrong with me, that I would care, so your logic goes. No, I really don’t care how they see me. I know I will never reach people irretrievably poisoned by Homobigotry in whatever form it exists.

    What I case about is dominionism, and the use of the law to harm other people under the guise of religion. So they serve gay people otherwise. BFD.

    That was my entire point.

  • Garson Abuita

    Shawnie, for the courts it doesn’t matter whether there’s scriptural support for banning interracial marriages. They can test for religiosity, but not into the doctrinal basis for the belief. Thus in the Bob Jones University case, “The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage,” was all the Court needed to say. Whether the Israelites encountered cult prostitution, what Paul meant by arsenokoiten, the applicability of OT law to Christians, is not an issue for them.
    Put it this way: It is conceded that anti-SSM is a sincerely-held religious belief. What about a Jewish baker that sincerely believes a Jew marrying a non-Jew is barred by Jewish law, and won’t bake a cake for them. Why is that position not privileged in the law, but the anti-SSM one is?

  • Garson Abuita

    The photographers vs. bakers distinction may be important under the Missouri bill. The bill gives vendors protection for goods or services of “expressional or artistic creation, such as photographers or florists.” They don’t mention bakers, but do say “such as.” Nevertheless, limiting it to expressional or artistic works means they meant to exclude at least some vendors. But who? Even going through pre-printed invitation books involves the vendor working with the couple on what they’d like. Caterers’origami napkins and watermelon swans? The photographers probably have the best argument here, because they might be able to make a First Amendment argument that they are being forced to engage in speech.

  • shawnie5

    “No, I really don’t care how they see me. What I case about is dominionism, and the use of the law to harm other people.”

    Yet the gist of this “harm” that you are insisting upon is that it somehow communicates to you (correctly or incorrectly) that some don’t “see” you in the way you prefer. For me that equals a shrug as I go on my way. For you, it means the sky is falling. That is the sad of it.

    As for “dominionism”…pfft. Paper tiger if ever there was one. You can not seriously posit that you are afraid of a theocracy arising in 21st century United States because you can’t get a cake from a particular unwilling baker in an industry of which your own people already control a large portion.

    “So they serve gay people otherwise. BFD.”

    BFD…except that it demonstrates quite directly that there is no specific intention to harm anyone, otherwise “discrimination” would be rampant in places exactly like Missouri where there is no law preventing it.

  • shawnie5

    Garson, the SCOTUS didn’t say that BJU COULDN’T prohibit interracial dating…only that it couldn’t continue to enjoy tax-exempt status if it did. But the issues are hardly similar. The SCOTUS in the BJU case had a century of already hashed-out anti-racism and anti-segregation jurisprudence behind it. It’s easy to officially tip the hat to the “sincerity” of BJU’s beliefs on the subject while simultaneously blowing them off when it’s obvious from our national and judicial history that those claims are factually empty.

    The same is not true of Obergefell. The SCOTUS (deliberately) used no strict scrutiny language as it did in BJU. And it specifically stated that it did not intend the ruling to limit religious liberty or remove anyone’s “proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

  • shawnie5

    “What about a Jewish baker that sincerely believes a Jew marrying a non-Jew is barred by Jewish law, and won’t bake a cake for them. Why is that position not privileged in the law, but the anti-SSM one is?”

    LOL! Please do let me know when that happens! Nobody appears to care much whether Jewish bakers approve of their marriage or not — certainly not enough to initiate a lawsuit over it. I can’t imagine why our approval, in contrast, is so coveted.

    But on a practical note, sexual orientation is not a protected class within constitutional jurisprudence worthy of strict scrutiny review. Race and religion are.

  • shawnie5

    I agree, Garson. Bakers can far more easily reorganize their business practices in such a manner as to avoid moral compromise.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Shawnie is lying again. Here’s just one example:

    “ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from a studio that refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony, letting stand a New Mexico high court ruling that helped spur a national debate over gay rights and religious freedom.”


  • CarrotCakeMan

    Please note Shawnie didn’t provide any documentation for his wid claim above.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Well, Shawnie, you can believe the one outlier poll if it makes you feel better. That won’t change the fact that the laws that forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are settled law. Remember, you lied about the US Supreme Court above.

  • CarrotCakeMan
  • CarrotCakeMan

    Shawnie thinks posting another insult will make the facts “go away.”

  • CarrotCakeMan

    We know why anti-gays routinely deny the facts. Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is cognitive dissonance, an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    So now Shawnie is denigrating Jewish Americans too…

  • ben in Oakland

    If I didn’t make this clear before, Shawnie, I’ll make it clear right now.

    Your comment is in fact the embodiment of the idea that as a heterosexual, as a so-called Christian, as a “moral” person, and as a human being, you and these so-called Christian martyrbaters cannot really see gay people as your equals– as citizens and human beings.

    You reduce such complex matters as 2000 years of faith based prejudice, directed at an innocent population for highly questionable (putting it mildly) reasons– murders, jails, destroyed lives, vilification– as nothing more than being all butthurt that some so-called Christians don’t like us.

    And you od it by simply ignoring my actual point. Way to go..

    As for your comment about there being no evidence of mass discrimination in MO against gay people? Of course. Because 1) It isn’t everyone, just the martyrbaters. and 2) they don’t gather such statistics in MO. 3) Most of us do move on and don’t obsess. It doesn’t mean we accept…

  • shawnie5

    Hee hee. I’ll gladly document it. Before I do, are you on record as claiming it is fraudulent?

  • shawnie5

    LOL! I didn’t lie about anything. You, however, don’t understand the law on this. The SCOTUS neither affirmed nor denied the lower court ruling in the Elane case. And the SCOTUS has never ruled on any situation resembling the one in Missouri, which is not the same as the situation in New Mexico. Period.

  • shawnie5

    Boswell never presented any facts. Ignorant lay people love his stuff because they like his assertions and don’t have the background to evaluate their truth or falsity. His peers, however, rightly dismiss his propaganda as “advocacy scholarship.” Gay atheists, in particular, utterly despised him for a coward trying to rewrite church history instead of repudiating the church outright and honestly.

  • Shawnie5

    Oh come off it, Ben. Half the country is wearing rainbow colors on their Facebook profiles to tell you how teeerific you are but you can’t bear to get a willing rather than an unwilling baker because the west repudiated same sex behavior for 2000 years? I call bull. What you can’t stand is that there are still people out there who aren’t under any delusions about immorality and are not too craven to acknowledge it. And if you were not fully equal and “human,” you would not be responsible for your own sins. But you are, and so are we all, which means we can neither join in on yours nor force you to join in on ours.

    And if there were any generalized lgbt discrimination in Missouri there would be a public stink about it just as there is around the wedding industry because you guys have media whining down to an art form. Instead there’s nothing. Zippo. Larry already made a fool of himself trying to dig some up and hopefully you’re not about to do the same.

  • Garson Abuita

    Shawnie, you keep framing the issue as gay couples’ seeking validation of their marriage. People aren’t suing because someone disapproves of their marriage, they’re suing because they were refused the same exact services that would have been given to a straight couple, and that’s illegal under the laws of the given jurisdiction.
    Your point about no one bothering to sue a Jewish vendor is apt, but not because everyone’s out to get the Christians. It’s because Judaism is a historically minority religion and people in business can’t afford, literally or figuratively, to discriminate. The Diamond District of NYC is overwhelmingly Orthodox Jewish. Yet, since NY’s legalization of SSM, I have not heard of even one claim of refusal, and I read Jewish media (not “The Jewish Media,” of course) on a daily basis. What’s likelier, they’re turned down and just go to Walmart? Or that the sellers may disapprove, but want the business?

  • Shawnie5

    What’s likelier, Garson, is that they never bother to go to the orthodox baker in the first place. Much less to the Muslim one.

  • shannon

    Why do you put “their children” in quotes?