News

A push for compromise on LGBTQ protections may tear evangelicals apart

Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, manages his shop on June 4, 2018, in Lakewood, Colo. The Colorado baker is back in court again. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

(RNS) — In the space of 48 hours, Americans got another taste for the raging battles over LGBTQ protections:

On Tuesday (Dec. 18), Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, was back in court arguing that the state of Colorado is punishing him over his refusal to bake a cake — this time celebrating a gender transition. (In June, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor when he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.)

The following day, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, signed an executive order protecting LGBTQ state employees from discrimination. (Two days earlier, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, also a Republican, signed protections for transgender people into law.)

For some religious conservatives, especially evangelicals, the best way to fight LGBTQ protections is to challenge them in court. Earlier this year, a group of five Wisconsin churches sued, seeking exemption from a municipal nondiscrimination ordinance protecting gender identity. Last week, a county judge agreed.

As 2018 comes to an end, many evangelicals find reason for hope: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Colorado baker. And the Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, cementing a conservative majority on the bench.

But now other evangelicals say that may not be the best way.

Christian activists gather outside of the Supreme Court in support of Colorado cake baker Jack Phillips on Dec. 5, 2017. RNS photo by Chris Mathews

Last week, World Magazine reported that two respected evangelical institutions, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, both quietly adopted a set of principles that call for comprehensive religious freedom protections combined with explicit support for LGBTQ protections in employment, education, housing and adoption, among others.

Neither group is backing down from the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. But the two groups want to work toward federally recognized protections for sexual orientation and gender identity alongside strong religious exemptions.

Specifically, they plan to soon unveil a draft of a bill they are working on with input from legal scholars, theologians and LGBTQ advocates that they say accomplishes those goals. The evangelical groups hope several members of Congress will sponsor the bill, tentatively called “Fairness for All,” in the session that begins Jan. 3.

“Fairness for All says we have to do this together because there are interests on both sides that ought to be protected,” said Stanley Carlson-Thies, director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance and a consultant in discussions about a possible bill.

The rainbow flag is a highly recognized symbol for the LGBTQ community. Photo by Ludovic Bertron/Creative Commons

The bill, which the NAE and CCCU have been working on for upward of three years, is still being finessed. An NAE spokesperson declined to comment on the bill and a spokesperson for the CCCU only spoke on background.

But their efforts will face stiff opposition from fellow evangelicals.

Already, leaders and institutions, from Russell Moore, the chief ethicist for the Southern Baptist Convention, to the Heritage Foundation and the Alliance Defending Freedom, have sharply criticized it.

“Placing sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in this kind of legislation would have harmful unintended consequences, and make the situation worse in this country, both in terms of religious freedom and in terms of finding ways for Americans who disagree to work together for the common good,” said Moore, who heads the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, an arm of the SBC.

Some 75 prominent evangelicals, including Franklin Graham, Jim Daly, Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. and Timothy George, signed a 2016 statement opposing any effort to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications. (The list included two prominent Catholic bishops, Charles Chaput and William Lori.)

But others, such as Johnnie Moore, one of President Trump’s evangelical advisers, are open to the idea.

“I have chosen — as a conservative and a religious liberty advocate — to not hyperventilate at theory, but to take the approach of listening, being in the relevant conversations and certainly not doing things like prejudging legislation I haven’t seen,” wrote Moore in an email to Religion News Service.

Leaders pushing for a legislative solution point to the “Utah compromise” as an example of the kind of law that could work nationally. In that state, a bipartisan anti-discrimination law that strengthens religious freedom and protects LGBTQ people from discrimination passed in 2015.  So far, it has not drawn legal challenges.

In this June 11, 2017, file photo, Equality March for Unity and Pride participants march past the White House in Washington.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

And they say a compromise bill would be far better for religious objectors than the Equality Act of 2017, which the next Congress, with a Democratic majority in the House, is expected to take up.

That bill, which Nancy Pelosi, the likely new House speaker, has indicated is a top priority, would create a uniform national standard for LGBTQ rights and discrimination protections. But it reportedly revokes any protection religious objectors might enjoy under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In the states, LGBTQ protections are a patchwork. In 28 states, there are no explicit statewide laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Two states — New York and Wisconsin — offer protections on the basis of sexual orientation but not gender identity. Another 19, plus the District of Columbia, offer full protections.

Meanwhile, laws limiting LGBTQ rights, such as Indiana’s 2014 religious freedom law and North Carolina’s 2016 bathroom bill,  have backfired, costing the states millions of dollars in lost revenues from boycotts.

“Those one-sided measures have not succeeded anywhere,” said Robin Fretwell Wilson, a professor of law at the University of Illinois who helped Utah legislators draft their compromise law and has consulted for the NAE and CCCU on their bill.

“The goal should be that gay people are treated with dignity in every respect and people who can’t fully embrace it are permitted to step aside and no one is the worst for it,” she said.

That the NAE and CCCU are willing to compromise on LGBTQ protections is meaningful in itself, say some scholars. The two institutions might be described as more moderate on the evangelical spectrum, said John Fea, professor of American history at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pa., a school that affiliates with the CCCU.

“They’re trying to thread a needle,” Fea said. “How can we try to preserve our identity as faith-based institutions on sexual ethics, while at the same time embracing a more open evangelicalism that is critical of the way the Christian right tends to see politics and social change?”

But at a time of deep political polarization, when culture warriors appear ascendant, that approach may not ultimately prevail.

“We can write the rules,” said Wilson. “But we have to actually decide to write them instead of always being at each other’s throats.”

About the author

Yonat Shimron

Yonat Shimron is an RNS National Reporter and Senior Editor.

304 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • For some people, one big attraction that religion offers is the opportunity for bigotry. Those religious leaders like Graham who feed the bigotry and feed off of the bigotry are not going to want to see the opportunity for bigotry in the public square weakened or diluted.

  • There is no compromise with treating others as human beings. If churches want to define themselves by whom they hate, go ahead. Just expect the same level of respect that they give others. Hate invites hate.

    The problem we have is whinybabies with an overdeveloped sense of privilege don’t want to face the inevitable consequences of their malicious actions.

    Legal compromises on civil liberties only means discrimination. None are needed.

  • SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. And so I also endorse that “Motion approved by the NAE Executive Committee 10/2/18”: That “no one should face violence, harassment, or unjust discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

    Why? Because: “[When my LGBT friends and enemies are] outside [the church], God judges” (1 Corinthians 5:13), but nothing “have I to do with judging outsiders … [but only to] judge “[if & when my LGBT friends and enemies get] within the church” (1 Corinthians 5:12).

  • If these same evangelicals who claim to be so offended at the sexual “immorality” of two gay people committing their love for one another in a civil ceremony at city hall were half as concerned about the sexual immorality of Donald Trump they might, just might have a shred of credibility. As it is, their claim of moral rectitude rings completely hollow. They don’t care about sexual immorality, however they define it. They just want to the law to allow them the “freedom” to discriminate against gay people. And they say we gay people are the ones always asking for “special treatment.”

  • “On Tuesday (Dec. 18), Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, was back in court arguing that the state of Colorado is punishing him over his refusal to bake a cake — this time celebrating a gender transition. (In June, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor when he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.)

    THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE IN HIS FAVOR.

    The following day, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, signed an executive order protecting LGBTQ state employees from discrimination.

    GREAT COURAGE FOR KASICH, WAITING UNTIL NOW. KASICH’S ORDER WILL BE REVOKED IMMEDIATELY MIKE DEWINE IS SWORN IN. What is it, a couple of weeks?

    Gay rights protections with religious exemptions means simply that the very people most likely to do so are very people who will be exempted, which means the protections mean very little. Let’s call it what it is, because this is what they are saying they want to be able to do: DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RELIGOUS BELIEF. It is illegal at every level of government, and has been for over 50 years. Either we don’t allow religious discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, or we do allow it, and for everyone, not just for snowflake conservatives.

  • “Unjust discrimination” means nothing, and is a loophole you can drive a very large church through.

    Let’s call it what it is <i>JUST Discrimination…

    In this case, on the basis of both sexual orientation AND religious beliefs.

  • For some people trolling religious people, it is fun to suggest that one big attraction that religion offers is the opportunity for bigotry, which gives them the opportunity to practice their bigotry.

    The First Amendment is the biggest obstacle to seeing bigotry in the Public Square weakened or diluted, but if people trolling religious people had their way that would not be the case.

  • Gay rights protections with religious exemptions means simply that in America religious rights have at least as much purchase as so-called gay rights.

  • Of course we could pass a constitutional amendment placing religious rights above sexual orientation “rights”.

    As a big fan of democracy that should eliminate your complaints and the argument would end.

  • On the one hand, going by Oxford University Dictionaries, “unjust discrimination [means] the … prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex” – that is contrary to “what is morally right and fair.”

    On the other hand, going by that dictionary again, “sexual orientation affirmation [means] … emotional support or encouragement” for “a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted”, or “the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual” for that person.

    Surely you’re not limiting born-from-above, fired-up and die-hard followers of THE Christ Jesus of the gospels, epistles and revelation, to just those Two Choices, are you? Why not give them The 3rd Choice in an outside-the-church, socio-cultural environment they share with their LGBT friends & enemies? Which is: practice NEITHER “unjust discrimination” against LGBT NOR “sexual orientation affirmation” of LGBT?

  • This is what I always say to evangelicals on this subject: please extend of us the same courtesy and respect that you routinely extend to all of the other people on the planet that you believe are sinning unrepentantly and going to go to hell because they don’t believe what you do.

    Discrimination? Not allowed.

    Affirmation? Neither expected or required.

  • Very good point. Which is why NAE is after the right(eous) balance between their religious freedom among LGBTs and the abolition of “unjust discrimination” against LGBTs.

  • They balance is that they don’t get to discriminate on the basis their religious beliefs, any more than I do.

  • I wish the NAE and the CCCU could read your post here, indeed that they would read all your pro-gay-marriage posts over the past year. Then maybe they would finally understand what they are REALLY up against. Maybe even consider abandoning their suicidal Neville Chamberlain notion to sign treaties with a no-compromise Goliath.

    Meanwhile, it’s time for Bible-believing Christians to start making preparations. Trump will be gone in 2020 or 2024. Gay Goliath will rule the roost again, and religious freedom will mostly rationed only to those Christians who clearly surrender. The NAE and CCCU are already signaling that they are (de-facto) giving up.

    So it’s time for individual Christians and Clergy to take the lead, rather than rely on NAE groups. Step One: Simply pray, agree with the Bible’s clear teachings, and find out what Christian resources are available for people who want to escape Goliath’s plantation. An excellent example: http://www.restoredhopenetwork.com

  • Put it there

    Or is it with the closed knuckles?

    Too bad, though, that NAE is now pilloried for this, their recent 3-point decision (first two about dis-affirmation, and the third re: discrimination) by the rest of the Evangelicals. What’s up with that? I think you already know. Me? I’m in disbelief that they’re pro-“unjust discrimination”. I had to fight them on that over at PJ Media, that first broke the news for me. Here have a looksee:

    https://pjmedia.com/faith/two-christian-groups-back-lgbt-rights-in-order-to-protect-religious-freedom/

    As always,

    PEACE MY BROTHER

    And Happy Holidays with Loved Ones & Friends!

  • Religion (which I do not oppose at all) is unfortunately the single biggest cause of bigotry. It’s nice, after all, to have God on one’s side when condemning people who are somehow “different” from the rest of us.

    I’m not surprised by the report’s mention of Archbishops William Lori and Charles Chaput. They are undoubtedly two of the biggest [email protected]$$es in the U.S. Catholic Church.

  • Who needs to compromise with segregationists? People who are hell bent at attacking the civil liberties of others get no quarter nor deserve any. They don’t want compromise, they don’t want reasonable action. So there is no need to pretend they do.

    Haters gotta hate. Grifters gotta grift. Haters make great grifting material.

  • Their three point plan is simply another way of saying what I already said. Free exercise means they get to do what they want. They were more than happy to violate the free exercise of all of the churches and synagogues and temples that were more than happy to see their congregants married. They did that repeatedly, and wantto do it again.

    As I said, either religious non-discrimination laws apply to everyone, or let’s just get rid of them. Because allowing exceptions to religious discrimination laws simply underlines why we have them to begin with.

  • Gay activists demand that Christians be forced by government itself, (in clear violation of the US Constitution’s written provision of religious freedom for all Americans), to participate in homosexual wedding events that directly, openly, and clearly violate the written biblical tenets of the victim’s Christian faith.

    The targeted victim (regardless of their beliefs) is forced, by their own American government, to violate their own beliefs. That’s what it means to be a Gay Activist today. And they like it that way too. I

    As predicted by Justice Thomas and others, Legalized Gay Marriage has declared war on Constitutional Religious Freedom. The NAE and CCCU blindly assume that the nightmare will stop if the NAE and CCCU endorse the baseline tenets and assumptions that power Gay Marriage itself. Which is like ole Neville thinking that ole Adolf would dial things down if ole Neville simply signed a partial-surrender peace treaty.

  • “That the NAE and CCCU are willing to compromise on LGBTQ protections is meaningful in itself,…”
    Proverbs 24: Whoever says to the wicked, “You are in the right,” will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations,25 but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight,

    Proverbs 18:5 English Standard Version (ESV) It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the righteous of justice.

    Deuteronomy 32:20 ESV And he said, ‘I will hide my face from them; I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness.

  • Isaiah 60:12

    English Standard Version

    For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste.

  • Threatening to punish a Christian trying to shun the appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22) and not agreeing with someone in rebellion of how the Lord made them, is ludicruous.

  • And once the gays take over the government, they are going to round up all the Godly heterosexuals and put them in gender separated concentration camps. I know this is true because I heard it somewhere.

  • And free exercise for the LGBT Lobby means they get to do what they want.

    Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, is back in court because a transgender attorney engineered it specifically to crush Jack Phillips.

  • Of course “believe are sinning unrepentantly and going to go to hell because they don’t believe what you do” is a red herring.

    Jack Phillips, for example, has NEVER said that anyone was going to hell because they don’t believe as he does.

  • Wel, you ignore the civil rights act if you wish. Maybe the courts will not. But nowhere in law does engaging in business equal religious belief.

  • “A push for compromise on LGBTQ protections may tear evangelicals apart”, but probably it’s just click bait.

  • “That bill, which Nancy Pelosi, the likely new House speaker, has indicated is a top priority, would create a uniform national standard for LGBTQ rights and discrimination protections. But it reportedly revokes any protection religious objectors might enjoy under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” and has the same likelihood of passage as that of Hell freezing over.

    On the positive side it will reinforce the belief among Americans with religious convictions that the Democratic Party is their enemy which led to its loss in the 2016 national election.

  • Ah but then why is “their three point plan” such a threat to the rest of my and their very own people of faith?

    Trust me when I say I’m caught right now between what Mark Connelly is saying & what you are saying. What if you’re both right? What if NAE & I are the minority here?

  • Although I’m against Jack Phillips for practising “unjust discrimination” much more than “religious freedom” and, as Ben in Oakland suspects, using the latter practice to justify the former; I’m also against the Reversed Sexual Harassment this “transgender attorney” had weaponized against Jack Phillips. You’re right about that.

    (What if you & BiO are both right? – was how I put it to him just now.)

    Religious Bigot 0:0 Secular Bigot

    That’s the Game Culture War I’m watching here, and that’s the score at the moment.

  • If I had to guess, their experience with Ted Haggard, combined with their weariness of the cultural wars,combined again with the grown ups taking over after the Haggard years,, combined with the dawning realization that they are losing this war, and in fact, have lost it all ready, and are losing the younger generation, combined with the realization at they have been EXTREMELY dead wrong about this and its fictional ramifications…

    All of this combined together produces what they see as a compromise. Of course, it’s only sort of a compromise, because they still reserve the right to discriminate.

    However, they are being crucified for it because others don’t see what they see, and there is too much power, money, and dominion tied up in the religious anti-ex-gay industry to let go of it willingly.

    Here is an interesting thought for you. Earlier this week, Richard land of the SBC was moaning and whining over the content restrictions posed by Facebook, apple, and other Silicon Valley companies on hate speech. You can read the whole thing with a little searching, but here is what is most important in what he said.

    “They are already being censored and shadow-banned from social media and platforms across the internet. These latter-day morality police are doing their dead-level best to ban conservative, pro-family, pro-life viewpoints from social media and the internet public square.

    The secular mullahs, ‘Taliban Lite,’ are the secular elites running Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc., and they are now arbitrarily trying to dictate to Americans who gets to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech rights in America and who is denied such freedoms—deciding for Americans what may and what may not be said online.

    It is well past time for Americans to insist that our elected representatives pass laws restraining these would-be censors and morality police from silencing and suppressing viewpoints they don’t like. Let your congressman and your senators know exactly how you feel about this. Literally, our freedom of speech is at stake..”

    ————

    back to me. He is confusing his real first amendment rights to say what he wants without government interference with the non existent right to be provided a platform to say it. Interestingly, he wants to use the government to force Apple and Facebook, PRIVATE COMPANIES WHO HAVE STATED THEY DONT ASCRIBE TO HIS “VALUES” to carry his messages when They have stated publicly they don’t ascribe to his values. It’s the ultimate in projection and complete snowflakery to them turn around a claim that jack philips cannot be forced by the government to serve all equally because a wedding cake, which almost never has even an inscription on it, is somehow SPEECH that must be protected.

    As I said, this is all about power and money, and the continued assault on gay people by the evangelical right wing. One more time, they are demanding the right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief, a right which no one else in this country has, in one case, and one case only: when they have to treat gay people the same as all of the rest of the people that don’t share their religious beliefs.

    The civil rights act forbids this kind of religious discrimination. So either toss the act and allow religious discrimination for everyone, or enforce it in every case, not just excepting the people they despise more than they used to despise Jews and Catholics.

    It’s pretty clear to me. You are a fair man. It ought to be clear to you as well.

  • THIS OXYMORONIC TRUTH IS STILL THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE, you’re telling me: Christians practising Religious Freedom to practice Unjust Discrimination.

    If only you’re a Prophet working with me in The Re-Evangelization of The Evangelicals.

    You frighten me with THE TRUTH OF THIS OXYMORONIC TRUTH. Thank you.

    In times like this, I go to where God & Jesus palpably exist: In prayer.

    I shall lament this Holiday Season before Them, “What’s going on here? Your people practising Religious Freedom to practice Unjust Discrimination?!”

  • In the end it is all up to God, as is everything. In this era and with this enemy, the end is already determined. The enemy has given us new senators that don’t know what the three branches of government are in this country. How did anyone get out of school like this? It was planned and directed by this enemy, the LGBTQ.

    The LGBTQ needs to break the spirit of all that oppose them and will sacrifice the earth to this end. This is the most peculiar ending for the earth, certainly not what any theologian or academic may have ever imagined.

    Rev. 13:15 “and he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 and he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

    Looks like the baker is subject to the beast, the LGBTQ. The theologian is subject to the beast, the LGBTQ. The academic is subject to the beast, the LGBTQ. This is because of the era, the time of man is fulfilled, 666 the number of man; created on the 6th day, his tribulation in the 6th day and his fate will be sealed by death in the 6th day. Six days shall man work and he will rest on the 7th day.

    Theologians, academics and the LGBTQ could not understanding time and the allegory of Galatians 4:24 until this last time for man on earth. To tell you the truth, I could not understand it either, until the time came. It’s the same old question: does anybody really know what time it is?

  • What time it is? The real question is…what time does the buzz wear off from the drugs you are taking?

  • Is that something like what I remember during my days behind Saint Paul VI High School, smoking weed with my Catholic pals?

  • Floyd, it is not war on constitutional religious freedom; it is war on the Constitution itself. The SCOTUS exceeded their Power that is limited by the words “all men are created equal” The LGBTQ people are equal and were equal under the Constitution. What SCOTUS did, made this group of people less equal. Inequality has to be removed and this was accomplished by the words “all men are created equal” the qualifier is the Creator. This phrase is what limits executive, judicial and legislative Power. It is an independent phrase in the ablative case.

  • Anything that acknowledges that gay people are human beings is going to face major opposition from most Evangelicals. Evangelicals have spent decades dehumanizing gay people and actively mistreating them. Asking them to recognize that gay people are human beings and stop mistreating them is anathema to most Evangelicals. That dehumanization and mistreatment is central to Evangelical religious faith. Evangelicals have dedicated their lives to making gay people’s lives a living hell on earth. Asking them to stop that won’t fly with most of them. You might as well ask them to deny the virgin birth go Jesus. They believe with all their hearts that God has called them to mistreat gay people in every way they possibly can. The proposal by the NAE and CCCU will never be accepted.

  • You’re Canadian, worry about your own house.

    However, LGBTQ folks have it pretty good in Canada. More of us may be moving there.

  • Thank you for your summary of the LGBT propaganda.

    In the real world Jack Phillips not only acknowledges “gay” people are human beings, he hires them to work in his shop.

    In the real world the current case was a setup by a transgender attorney specifically to entrap Jack Phillips and put him out of business once and for all.

    In the real world Christians make a distinction between a same sex attraction and acting on it, the first being unfortunate and the second being sin.

    And that last sentence is the distinction that the the National Association of Evangelicals and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities recognize, in common with their Catholic brethren.

  • “However, they are being crucified for it because others don’t see what they see, and there is too much power, money, and dominion tied up in the religious anti-ex-gay industry to let go of it willingly.”

    Your shtick is to LGBT rights what Jesse Jackson is to civil rights: a call to arms.

    In the real world Jack Phillips not only acknowledges “gay” people are human beings, he hires them to work in his shop.

    In the real world the current case was a setup by a transgender attorney specifically to entrap Jack Phillips and put him out of business once and for all.

    In the real world Christians make a distinction between a same sex attraction and acting on it, the first being unfortunate and the second being sin.

    And that last sentence is the distinction that the the National Association of Evangelicals and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities recognize, in common with their Catholic brethren.

    You’re on board with the transgender attorney: you want a war, and won’t be satisfied until the jackboot of the Gay Goliath crushes the religious beliefs of folks like Jack Phillips.

  • According to Jesus, no man knows the time of his return, not even Him. You seem to be saying that this was a mistake on his part.

  • According to Jesus, no man knows the time of his return, not even Him. You seem to be drinking some of the water of the word, but not all of it. How do you decide which water of the word to drink and which water of the word to ignore and not drink?

  • If gay people were not human beings, their sexual behavior would have no moral significance of any kind.

  • There is no right to discriminate. Your religious beliefs are not a valid pretext to harm others.

    You are not seeking equality, you are seeking legally sanctioned superiority over others. A privilege to demean a class of people in public and deny them access to open commerce, employment, education or any other consideration as people.

    Your goals are nothing more than segregation.

  • This is a bogus argument. Attacks on Christians resisting gay demands for cake bakers, photographers, etc. predates Trump. It is not a conflict with a particular person but a fundamental difference in values.

  • They are not being denied “access to open commerce, employment, education.” There are a hundred bakers from whom to get cake, many commercial establishments to use, many educational programs to enroll in.. The argument they are being denied access across the board is a bogus one.

  • And because gay people ARE human beings, and their “sexual behavior” both harms no one and is none of YOUR business, it has no significance beyond that which you desperately need to impart to it.

  • Thank you. As I said, you’re a fair man. We don’t always agree, especially when it comes to belief. But we can both allow the other to think as he chooses, and recognize truth when we see it.

  • Except, of course, when they opposed communism.

    Oh, and the LGBT Lobby, aka Gay Goliath.

    Oh, and Nazism.

    Oh, and ….

  • You are just looking for a privilege to refuse to sell goods and services available to the general public for anyone who walks in the door of a shop because of prejudices against the class of people of the given customer.

    Absolutely no different in action or purpose than segregation.

    “There are a hundred bakers from whom to get cake, many commercial establishments to use, many educational programs to enroll in”

    So they have the choice of separate but equal facilities and establishments. Just not those given ones. Where have we heard that argument before? Oh right, in arguments for segregation.

  • According to Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), private acts are private.

    That’s not what is being discussed here.

    Jack Phillips not only acknowledges “gay” people are human beings, he hires them to work in his shop.

    The current case was a setup by a transgender attorney specifically to entrap Jack Phillips and put him out of business once and for all.

    Christians make a distinction between a same sex attraction and acting on it, the first being unfortunate and the second being sin.

    And that last sentence is the distinction that the the National Association of Evangelicals and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities recognize, in common with their Catholic brethren.

  • Thank god you will be gone one day.

    If we were not all going to be gone one day, we’d be up to our armpits in folks using walkers.

  • We don’t get many visitors from

    LGBTQ Nation.

    The usual nonsense like this comes from devotees of JoeMyGod.

  • Jack Phillips was willing to serve all the public, gay & straight. Baronelle Stutzmann served gays and hired gays in her shop.

    (And nobody talks about the fact that Gay Goliath”s fanatical legal attacks and bullying put ALL those gay employees out of work. Expendables, it seems.)

    Want to participate in a gay wedding or reception? Then YOU do so, yes. Won’t get in your way.

    But you — and government — don’t get the right to force OTHERS to violate their own clearly written, established, long-standing religious beliefs by forcing such participation in such events. US Constitution says, Freedom of Religion.

  • Matthew 24:36
    “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

    Doesn’t make sense in the Trinity, does it?

  • The difference in values between decent human beings who respect the laws protecting people and those who feel that God absolves them of the basic courtesy of treating certain classes of people like human beings. Seeking an excuse to act maliciously and harm them wherever and however possible.

  • Prior to his death and resurrection Jesus had “emptied Himself” (Phillippians 2:7) of the infinity that belongs to the divine attributes, and took upon Himself the limitations necessary incidental to man’s nature, even when untainted by evil and in the fullest fellowship through the Spirit with the Father.

    After his resurrection that was no longer the case.

  • No he wasn’t. He wanted to treat gay customers as social inferiors and was too much of a crybaby to face the consequences of his malice.

    Frankly if you guys wanted to be real Christian martyrs to the cause of being hateful d-bags to gays, then stop whining about the inevitable punishment that comes with it. Trust in God to protect you and stop looking for special favors and privilege under our laws.

    Just because you can’t abide by anti-discrimination laws doesn’t mean we all have to trash them for your sake.

  • It’s not so cut and dried if free speech is involved. The baker doesn’t refuse to serve gays just will not create custom cakes involving gay marriage. I personally think of it as discrimination but what if a customer wanted me to create a religious-themed cake? Would I have the right to refuse him because I am anti-religious? What if a Muslim caterer refused to include pigs-in-a-blanket for my wedding menu?

  • Remember when Christians came out in droves to denounce the serial adultery and admitted sexual assaulting behavior of the current president? Me neither.

  • There is a difference here from an unreasonable request scenario.It is not the request which is objectionable, its the class of people making the request.

    It makes no difference if it is custom work, if the vendor sells it to the general public, it is available to the general public.

  • “The lgbtip propganda [Christian propaganda] needs to be exposed for what it is.” . . . a stew of fallacy, delusion, fantasy, gullibility, hoax, sophistry, chicanery, fraud, scam, etc. . . . all of which are exploited in a never-ending crusade for dominion/sovereignty over all humanity, along with a quest for greater wealth among some sleazy people/organizations.

  • Actually, given the out and out racism that existed among white Evangelicals when I was a child, it is comparable. And the racism is still there, it’s just gone underground.

  • Floyd, Jesus didn’t live and die so uou could use his name as a cudgel to beat up on people you don’t approve of.

  • In other words, you would give Jim Johnson an automatic free pass no matter what, but you would totally shut down Floyd Lee’s bakery and mercilessly put all of the bakery’s gay & lesbian employees out of work and out of food.

    Fortunately, we got this little thing that’s generally called, The US Constitution.

  • No, there is no “in other words here” I was pretty clear in what I said and you are choosing to misrepresent it.

    If you chose to discriminate in your business open to the public, expect to face legal and social consequences of your actions like a mature adult. Don’t go whining or pretending you are being treated unfairly. You willingly chose malice over civil behavior and compliance with the law.

    If you are so overcome by bigotry that you can’t even consider treating all customers in a reasonable fashion, the best thing to do is do your business through more closed and private avenues. Word of mouth, membership clubs, by referral only… This way none of us normal, sane, not hateful people don’t have to be bothered with your immature whining demanding special privileges over others.

  • Indeed. We are discovering that THIS is the issue Evangelicals have found to excuse themselves from any obligation to actually behave as “Christians” at all. The net results are the ruining of churches, new enrichment of the already-rich as sharpies take advantage of the “situation” and political leadership at the top transforming from democracy to quasi-dictatorships worldwide.

  • Yours is none of our business, thankfully. Within the faith, however, sexuality will always be the business of the Body of Christ because we are all accountable to each other. The good news is, nobody’s making you sign on.

  • Every single USA businessman or businesswoman — including all the gay and lesbian business owners out there (and athiests too!) — are included in, and covered by, the Religious Freedom provision of the US Constitution.

    Government can’t be allowed to force citizens of any kind into participating in events that clearly (and also permanently, by the way) oppose their established religious beliefs.

  • No, they are not comparable.

    Racism is based on secondary physical characteristics, primarily skin color.

    That means an infant can be the target of racism.

    LGBT discrimination is based on behavior. No infant is the target of LGBT discrimination.

    They are qualitatively and quantitatively different at their roots.

    I believe what you were trying to communicate was something along these lines:

    “When I was child I was surrounded by out and out racism. Most of the practitioners were members of evangelical churches.”

    This deletes the implication that the CAUSE of racism was evangelicalism, which is demonstrably untrue.

    It also leaves out “it’s just gone underground” which, unless you have ESP, is at best your guess.

  • ” are included in, and covered by, the Religious Freedom provision of the US Constitution.”

    Which has always been interpreted to exclude harming others in the name of your faith and laws of general application.

    Your right to discriminate is the same as your right to commit human sacrifice, burn witches, forcibly convert others at gunpoint, and burning crosses on the laws of others. None whatsoever.

    You are not asking for religious freedom, you are demanding privilege over others. A right to treat others as social inferiors and to attack them without any consequences. A very immature, self-centered and morally repugnant goal.

    “Government can’t be allowed to force citizens of any kind into participating in events that clearly oppose their established religious beliefs.”

    Quite untrue. What you call “forced into participating” is simply carrying out their business as normal and treating everyone with the same level of civility. It is demanded by anti-discrimination laws.

    Your entire premise is based on dishonestly reframing and redefining the actions here. It is nothing more than discrimination and segregation that you are calling for. No different in actions from everyone else saying, “we don’t serve your kind”.

    Your position is one of immature demands for special privileges over others. The Constitution does not give you such a right. Even if you claim it is your religious belief.

  • Jesus loves everyone regardless of their flavors and He offers the same all-powerful salvation & healing to everybody.

    But what about those Christian business owners that you “don’t approve of”? Do they get the same protection of US Constitution religious freedom as all the other business owners (including LGBT owners) do? Or do you want to repeal it for the Bible-believing Christians?

  • The efforts of the National Association of Evangelicals and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities give me hope. There is an answer out there – and, yes, it is a compromise. But a compromise based on respect. We need to get away from the polar positions and find common ground.

    Those “75 prominent evangelicals” opposing the work seeking solutions and standing on the divisive ground they have always been on – need to get off their extreme positions and work toward real social solutions. I am not surprised that Catholic bishops Chaput and Lori signed on to this refusal to seek solutions. So typical. They definitely do not represent most Catholics, probably not even the Catholics in their own dioceses/archdioceses.

    There is room within a democracy for the many differences we assign labels to: skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, What we need to do is get beyond how we reduce individuals to a particular label (by skin color, ethnic upbringings, religious beliefs, etc.) and forget to look at the real entire person. Who we are as decent individuals, good citizens, good neighbors, good fellow workers – is not reducible to one factor, one of those labels.

  • Very likely most Christians, like myself, take all politicians’ pretensions to Christianity with a grain of salt. Trump’s sexual behavior, therefore, is none of our business either.

  • the Klan are (or have been) a violent extremist group who particularly disliked African Americans. I think there may be faults with your analogy.

  • “Trump’s sexual behavior, therefore, is none of our business either.”

    The fact that some people are gay and may have families is none of your business either. But you feel the need to denounce their existence anyway. Because you are a hypocrite.

    Its not about morality, its about excuses for bigotry. Thank you for making that clear.

  • Where does the limit end? If I work at Subway, technically I’m a sandwich artist, does that mean I can refuse service to anyone using religion as justification?

  • Sexuality within the Body of Christ is the business of the Body of Christ. Always has been, always will be.

    Nobody is making you sign on, or “denying your existence” (whatever that means). So butt out.

  • Unless it is convenient to turn a blind eye to it in order to receive some kind of benefit. Nobody is compelling you to treat others as less than people. You choose to do so for personal gratification.

    “Values” are always easier to use as a blunt instrument against others than to apply to one’s self. Which really undermines any pretense of the actions involved being based in morals or values.

  • No one but no one knows who you are unless you reveal it by behavior.

    That is not the same thing as racism.

  • In both cases a baker is being asked to bake a cake that they find horribly offensive. Either everyone should be forced to do it or no one. Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a wedding cake that features Mohammed depicted as a cartoon pig? 🐖

  • They’re part of the “public” that are supposed to be served in all public accommodations, aren’t they?

  • Kindly refrain from telling me what I really think or what my “real” motives are. You can not read minds any better than you can read actual books.

    Your hero, Anthony Kennedy, specifically wrote into Obergefell that the repudiation of same-sex practice is based in decent and honorable religious and philosophical premises that were not to be attacked by any government action. Two and one-half years before he went to bat for his protegee that he knew he could trust to help safeguard the 1st Amendment on the SCOTUS.

  • Are you sure you want to go down the road of discrimination against choices? Your side won’t come out in a good place.

  • That does not legitimize the myth of god and the scam of religion. Many people who were not religious did the same thing. Religion does not matter.

  • Its pretty apparent what they are. Its not reading minds, its reading posts.

    “and honorable religious and philosophical premises that were not to be attacked by any government action”

    There is nothing honorable in discrimination. No philosophic, moral or ethical underpinning which is worth a damn. It has always been nothing more than rationalizing malice and seeking special privilege over others. At the end of the day its nothing more than declaring, “We don’t serve your kind here”.

  • There is nothing honorable about the myth of god and the scam of religion that’s designed to harden hearts, terrify, enslave minds, control and maximize power and profit for the hucksters selling the scam with their hands on the controls. Religion only caused divisiveness, hatred and conflict based on make believe and supernatural nonsense, which equals nothing. Religion consists of nothing but an excuse for the worst people in the world to strut, posture, preen, show off and brag about morals, principles and values they really don’t have. That’s why they supported tRUMP. They are such hypocrites and liars. When every thing they believe is based on pretending it’s easy for them to pretend about everything else too.

  • Not really. With their hoods and regalia on, they pose an inherent threat of violence for people of color. As such accouterments were meant for.

  • Plus there is no history of such people being discriminated against under color of law. Of requiring the protection of anti-discrimination laws.

  • Now are the Klannies in their costumes or just people you know to be in the Klan? There is a difference in context there.

    One is an ordinary customer whose personal views you happen to despise, the other is a person who is deliberately acting in a manner meant to threaten others.

  • Hit a little too close to home eh? So all I need to do is find a singular Klansman that isists that he was born that way?

  • But he claims to be a Christian. He had his bible to prove. It Evangelical fan club claims he is a Christian. His religious supporters say god sent him.

    You just choose where you don’t want to interject your opinion according to what? Politics? Republicanism?

  • They figured that it didn’t matter when nothing happened to the first black president when he worked that Monica girl over with a cigar…

  • You are basically telling me those Christians are immoral scumbags who have no sense of the values they profess and look for excuses to ignore them by citing others. Fair enough.

    Nothing happened with the first black president other than racists and partisan hysterics getting all wound up. Christians like Ken Starr got in a tizzy over consensual acts but didn’t seem to mind rampant sexual assault. Go figure.

    Why are you so afraid to address Trumps moral failings yet seek to attack others on the subject? Because it’s never about values or morals.

  • Having seen administrations come and go, having voted both sides of the political fence in the course of my adult life, having almost always been disappointed, and not being a naive fool, I look at every slate of candidates and assume that each of them is some kind of a phony at best, and a skeeve at worst, otherwise no one could pay them enough to live and work in the corrupt cesspool that is Washington DC — let alone spend and campaign to get themselves there. And I am more skeptical of their claims to religion than anything else. The only question is which phony/skeeve is most likely to support policies that I think might benefit the nation.

    I may have mentioned one of my high school friends who is now in politics. Married a girl with enough money to get him started, to whom I am sure he has been spectacularly unfaithful, and while he was and is a rank atheist and always will be he now claims a vague “Presbyterianism” in order to seem innocuous to the voters. Snake-oil salesmen are the nature of the game. Caveat emptor.

    I’d even vote for one of you alphabeters, atheist and all, if I could see some glimmer of support for the Constitution, strong economy and defense, and respect for EVERYONE’S liberty. Unfortunately all I ever see from this club is an appetite for socialism and tyranny — like you guys here willing to trash the Bill of Rights merely to get someone to play tea party with you. Sad.

  • Pfft. There is no special privilege to be had in this context. Nobody wants to turn down business. But some things are more important than money.

  • You want a privilege to treat others in public as social inferiors and harm them for self gratification. Like every other bigot who wants to discriminate.

    It’s just that simple.

  • I doubt that people of color would find avowed white supremacists any more acceptable in tuxes than in robes.

    What’s more, I doubt that anyone would try to force them to find them acceptable for the fun of it. Unlike the case in point.

  • It certainly does not delegitimize them, which was Corey Mondello’s point.

    Of course religion matters. If it did not, we would not be reading “Religious News Service” and constant attacks on religion.

  • No, it is not the same as racism.

    No infant is ostracized for being gay.

    In private acts – with the exceptions such as human sacrifice and pederasty – no one should have to change to appease someone else.

    However, we’re not talking private acts.

    We’re discussing this in the context of a society and public acts.

  • Who wears hoods and regalia at a wedding?

    But Jack Phillips could tell us quite a bit about threats of violence.

  • Still not a good analogy. Perhaps a Muslim baker having to make a wedding cake for a Jew or Christian would be better.

  • Only if his religion taught that it was somehow sinful for a Jew or a Christian to marry. Then perhaps it would be a good analogy.

  • It would be rude to ask a Muslim baker to bake a cake that features Mohammed as a cartoon pig 🐖. It would be rude to ask a Jewish baker to bake a cake covered in swastikas. It would be rude to ask a genderless White liberal such as yourself to bake a gun-themed wedding cake. It would be rude to ask a Catholic to bake a polygamous wedding cake. And it is rude to ask a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake.

  • Born what way, a racist? Doubt it. Rather they are probably just extremely insecure, ignorant and/or disgruntled.

  • Infants aren’t able to express themselves in that way, I don’t see the difference age makes when others perception of that person is what is at issue. Autism isn’t evident at birth either, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t manifest as different behavior later.

    I don’t see your point about ‘acts.’ Being gay isn’t an act, it’s part of who we are. Some are more flamboyant than others, but that’s their right and no one should deny them service because of that.

  • “Social inferiority” does not even enter into it. In this political climate you take “social inferiority” on yourself by taking a stand.

    And nobody was harmed. The couple got the cake they wanted for free.

    That high school girls’ locker room must have really been brutal.

  • Born without a functional reproductive instinct? I doubt it. Rather they probably just ran into a pervert in the park with a present in his pants.

  • I have a great deal of respect for the constitution, especially the part that says no establishment– in short, not allowing purely theological concerns into the civil law that governs all of us. The Constitution guarantees you freedom of belief, but that doesn’t mean that you are privileged above others’ beliefs. The Civil Rights act of 1964 covered that whole issue about discrimination on the basis of religious belief, which you seem to feel entitled to as long as you call it RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
    I have a great deal of respect for a strong defense. But defense does not include invading other countries because it serves our geopolitical, i.e., monetary interests.
    Trashing the Bill of rights? Let’s talk about Richard Land and his First Amendment claims that businesses that disagree with his religious beliefs must provide him with a platform for expressing it. Funny, he thinks just the opposite when it comes to cakes. As, probably, do you.
    socialism in this context means whatever you think it means. Tyranny means you just object to no longer having tyranny over the lives of gay people.
    Sad.

  • It appears we have here another one of those atheists who spend hours on religious sites to demonstrate to everyone how little they care about religion.

    I’ve been chuckling at them ever since my days at HuffPo.

  • You are changing the narrative to cover up the obvious flaws in the premise. There is a difference between both situations in the question posed.

    Avowed white supremacists acting in a civil manner have every right to be treated in a civil manner at a given shop, like any other customer.

    Your premise is dishonest garbage.

    You guys muffed up the usual narrative by failing to deliberately confuse a request for a blatantly inflammatory request with gays buying the sane kind of cake as every other couple.

    Troll better next time.

  • “Infants aren’t able to express themselves in that way ….”.

    In other words, it is all about behavior, unlike being black, red, or yellow from birth to death.

    Racism is an entirely different class of behavior, and racism and LGBT discrimination are radically different things.

    “Some are more flamboyant than others, but that’s their right and no one should deny them service because of that.”

    You want to might note that Jack Phillips is not being accosted for denying gays services, but for refusing to provide certain services which violate his religious beliefs.

    Regurgitating the tired LGBT Lobby’s propaganda is not advancing your argument.

  • No, if you work at Subway, technically you’re a sandwich assembler assembling standard sandwiches off a fixed menu at your employer’s direction.

    Now, if you open “Stephen’s Sandwiches Shoppe” and make custom sandwiches to order, you might be able to make the sandwich artist argument.

  • Establishment means just what it did in Europe when the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights — a state religion. The founders expected and indeed desired that people’s faith would often inform their votes, acting as a restraint upon human inclinations toward greed, profligacy and irresponsibility. That is why John Adams stated that our government was designed for a “moral and religious” people.

    So do YOU want to give Richard Land, whoever he is, a platform?

  • “The Constitution guarantees you freedom of belief, but that doesn’t mean that you are privileged above others’ beliefs.”

    Yes, you are privileged in certain aspects above others’ beliefs.

    It’s complicated and apparently well over your pay grade.

  • As you’re demonstrating as you attack people who adhere to religion, apparently more than religion causes divisiveness.

    It appears that dislike of religion accomplishes everything you say religion accomplishes.

    I just point that out as you strut, posture, preen, show off and brag about lack of morals, principles, values and hatred for religion.

  • LOL! What a hypocrite. I’m sure Sarah Sanders was being perfectly civil when she was asked to leave a certain restaurant and you were all for it. And I was fine with it too; let Lexington’s tourist trade take the hit for it (which they have) instead of the Constitution.

    Hey Floyd, hope you don’t sing, bake or decorate, ’cause Spuddie is going to make you serve a wedding for the head honcho of your local KKK. Be forewarned!

  • “But he claims to be a Christian. He had his bible to prove (it).”

    To the tune of “Cowboy’s Lament”:

    As I walked out in the streets of Laredo
    As I walked out in Laredo one day,
    I spied a young fellow holding a Bible
    All dressed in white linen and beginning to pray.

    “I see by your Bible, that you are a Christian.”
    “I see by your Bible you are a Christian true.”
    “We see by our Bibles that we are both Christians,
    If you buy a Bible you can be a Christian, too.”

    Btw, Bibles are readily available, and you need not prove you’re a Christian to buy one.

  • LOL! Who are you kidding? The whole point of discrimination is to demean others in a public setting. There is no moral or ethical underpinning. It is just malice with a creative excuse.

    Nobody was harmed? Except the customers who were denied the goods and services. Discrimination in such a fashion is a legally recognized harm to an individual. The segregation you desire is nothing but an attempt to harm entire classes of people for its own sake.

  • And she is covered by anti-discrimination laws because????? You were not OK with it at the time. You were using the incident as an example of “uncivil liberals”.

    If the head honcho of the KKK is wants a normal cake sent to his residence without any kind of racist inflammatory writing on it, he is entitled to it like everyone else. Why not?

    If he comes into the store wearing his hood and robes to order the cake, not so much.

  • No, ding dong. I attack religion because religion is the problem and it’s unnecessary as it’s based on nothing and it’s a bad thing. Religion is the cause of divisiveness. I have morals, principles and values. That’s why i didn’t vote for tRUMP like the Talibangleicals did proving their claims are pure BS. Pretenders and liars.

  • christians poured out of their churches to start America’s civil war so they could keep their slaves, Almost destroyed America, killed 650,000 fellow christians then went right back to church to “praise god”. What kind of people do that? Religion matters because it causes divisiveness, hatred and conflict, but it’s based on nothing-Lies. hypocrisy, pretend and make believe. That’s what make it so exasperating and infuriating. Better stop it.

  • Christians poured out of their churches to start the Civil War and destroy the South, including people who had nothing at all to do with slavery.

    Why?

    Because non-Christians were as scarce as hen’s teeth.

    Which is all you “proved”.

  • Dirty job, but some one’s gotta do it. Exposing religion for the myth and scam that it is and those who promote it. Your fault. You bear the blame and guilt for the damage religion does to humanity. Admit it. oh, and chuckle as you nuzzle my testicular appendages or while you bit a wild hog in the rectum.

  • christians done it. That’s the point. All them “good christians” killing all them other “good christians. Now-Justify, legitimize, validate, make excuses, deny, lie then lie about lying. Hey maybe it wuz them there godless atheists whodunnit. Yeah, it wuz probably them.

  • Even if they had nothing to do with slavery they were enablers. Just like all those who “are not like that” but set in church and enable others.

  • Retired welder (and a damn good one according to my co-workers). Funny how christian welders were no better than me even though god was helping them to be good welders.Did dirty jobs when i had to. Not above it. Exposing the myth of god and the scam of religion-best job i ever had.

  • “christians”……………..in their “christian nation”. I live 25 miles from where “good christians” committed the “ROSEWOOD MASSACRE” , in the anal orifice of the bowels of the buybull belt FloriDUH. Google it. Yeah it was about a 100 years ago, but it like Mark Twain said, “The character of man does not change, only the circumstances do”. These “good christians here in Levy are the same kinds of SOB’s as they wer 100 years ago. Hateful, violent, hypocrites and liars. Always pretending. Always pretending.

  • Ow. That truth do hurt. Run. Desperately look around for an out while claiming to be a counter puncher like the little boy tRUMP. Too much heat in da kitchen?

  • Just as:

    (1) “[LGBTism] and [LGBT advocacies] are fabricated imaginary nonsense and don’t matter at all.”

    (2) “[Ashiesm] and [Asheist rationalizations] are fabricated imaginary nonsense and don’t matter at all.”

    (3) “[Millennialism] and [Millennial deferences] are fabricated imaginary nonsense and don’t matter at all.”

    (4) “[Liberalism] and [progressive ideas] are fabricated imaginary nonsense and don’t matter at all.”

    AND OH YEAH JUST AS:

    (5) “[You, krimefan] and [your rusty yet primed vanities] are fabricated imaginary nonsense and don’t matter at all.”

  • I was absolutely ok with it. As I said, let the community take the hit in the wallet. And so they did.

    The point being, of course, that serving ALL of the public (the usual comeback) does not always mean all of the public.

  • Oh dear. How will i go on? Think i’ll go outside and drink me a beer and smoke me a kool. I’m devastated.

  • The whole point of declining same sex weddings is to avoid participation in evil activities. And “public settings” has nothing to do with anything — there would be just as much resentment if the entire episode played out by email.

  • The whole point of denying gays goods and services in open commerce is to feel socially superior to them. The same reason people did the same exact thing to people of color back in the days of legalized segregation. Looking for a consequence free way of saying, “____ you, I don’t serve gays”

    No matter how hard you dishonestly reframe it as “refusing to participate…” the actions are no different in any objective fashion to any other form of discrimination based on prejudices.

    Public settings has everything to do with it. Because there is no issue if these discriminatory malicious bigots did their business in closed commerce methods.

  • LOL! You say that quite easily, but I have seen you scream bloody murder when you think certain Christians are being “treated unfairly” for their rather pernicious views of others. Your statement defies belief based on everything you have been saying for years.

    “The point being, of course, that serving ALL of the public (the usual comeback) does not always mean all of the public.”

    Which is really nonsense. There are plenty of legitimate and acceptable reasons not to serve people in open commerce. But the class of people the customers are is never going to be one of them. Despite how hard you make dishonest analogy here.

  • Not with the last administration. Incidents 20 years ago with people already despised by “Values voters” doesn’t amount to much either. Clearly Christians only seemed to object to sexual impropriety if the people involved are Democrats. You made your hypocrisy abundantly clear.

    But its good to know all that moralizing and “religious conscience” of Christians here is really a load of garbage that even they don’t take seriously.

    Clearly your morals and values are non-existent for Christians like yourself. You feel any act is acceptable as long as you can make a spurious claim that someone else did it first. Christians can commit murder with impunity according to you by claiming, “well Hitler killed a lot of people, so its OK for me to do it a little”.

    So why do you go with the whataboutism? Because you can’t defend the president’s actions on their own merits and need to find some excuse as to not sound like complete scum.

  • No “make believe” here, krimefan – “only reality matters” (whereas “[you, on the other hand] … don’t matter at all” – not this Christmas, nor EVER), and I’ll show you:

    (1) Acts 1:2-3 – “To the apostles whom He had chosen … Jesus presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing PROOFS [τεκμηρίοις = tekmeeriois = fixed and sure sign-post supplying indisputable, unmistakable, irrefutable information], appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.”

    (2) Acts 17:30-31 – “God … has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished PROOF [πίστιν = pistin = guarantee, certainty, assurance] to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

    (3) Romans 3:24-26 – “Our being justified as a gift by God’s grace is through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth in advance to achieve a particular purpose [προέθετο = proetheto] as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was for the DEMONSTRATION [ενδειξιν = endeixin = the showing forth, the pointing out, indication, proof, significance] of His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed. It was for the DEMONSTRATION [ibid], I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

  • CORRECTION: “Conservatives [and Liberals and Moderates and Extremists and Apathists] … are always on the wrong side of history”! Only God & Jesus on the holy “side”!

  • 1. You missed the point, just because expression is limited due to age doesn’t mean it’s not inherent from birth, the same as race. I’m also not seeing your point, is it that ‘behavior’ is fair game for discrimination? If so, that’s both wrong and unamerican.

    2. And LGBT aren’t obliged to respect his beliefs which end where another persons begin. No rights are absolute and his free exercise of religion 100% does not supervise another’s rights to equal treatment in the marketplace, which does indeed include providing the same services to all customers.

    Regurgitating tired and intellectually dishonest talking points certainly isn’t doing your side any good, that’s why we’re winning.

  • CORRECTION: “That dehumanization and mistreatment is central [NOT] to Evangelical religious faith” – but to “Evangelical” politics, realpolitiking, powermongering since, in the context of America-Outside-The-Kingdom-of-God, Billy Graham & Jerry Falwell were puffed up by the Republican Party & Neocons. That’ll always happen when me & my people of faith render unto Caesar what’s Caesar’s, but not render unto God & Jesus what’s Theirs.

  • Being part of the “class” of Trump administration officials appeared to be an acceptable reason for discrimination to you, and other hypocritical libs like you.

    Please state when and where I ever suggested that anyone should be sued for not wanting to participate in Christian ceremonies and activities.

    Certainly I was fine with the restaurant ‘s action — from a legal standpoint. No, I would not give them my business or support them in any way after that. But, their business, their loss, their choice.

    If you’re surprised by any of this, then most likely you have been talking when you should have been listening. As is usually the case with you.

  • You’re drifting off the topic.

    The topic is discrimination.

    You cannot discriminate against a person for “X” if you do not know they are “X”.

    Unless you go to work unshaven with a mustache and beard wearing a miniskirt and falsies or something like that, no one knows what your orientation is.

    You’ve already admitted in different words it’s all about behavior.

    So, we first conclude that it is totally unlike racism.

    As to “Gay people are gay”, the jury remains out.

    At least some “gay” people claim to have changed their inclinations.

    There is no blood test or other sure-fire scientific method for testing for “gay”.

    There is, however, for race.

    Even if “Gay people are gay”, that does not – per se – buy anything under law.

    Kleptomaniacs are kleptomaniacs. That buys them nothing.

    The author of the article mentioned Jack Phillips.

    Jack Phillips has hired and served LGBT people for many years.

    That is not good enough for the radical wing of the LGBT movement.

    They want him to do things offensive to his beliefs.

    And THAT is really the topic – the Gay Goliath LGBT Lobby who wishes to crush religion in the Public Square.

  • 1. You missed the point.

    Because expression is limited due to age, it is 100% noted only by behavior, which is radically different than race.

    That was my point, which you jumped into with both feet, that LGBT discrimination differs from both race and sex discrimination per se.

    2. Whether LGBT are obliged to respect beliefs which conflict with other people’s rights is one of the topics under discussion.

    The notion that if you are “in the marketplace (you must be) providing the same services to all customers” is a proposition, not a fact.

    First, LGBT is NOT included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Second, it is demonstrably untrue that everyone in the marketplace must provide the same services to all customers. Actors, attorneys, ministers, and a host of other professions which provide specific services are not covered at all.

    As to “that’s why we’re winning”, winning appears to have peaked with Obergefell v Hodges.

    Thanks to LGBT extremist overreach, such as the Jack Phillips cases, the public opinion has begun to swing the other way.

    At the very least the American public is going to insist that people’s religious beliefs are respected as a matter of law, IMHO, even if it requires a constitutional amendment.

  • He has been married to the same women for the majority of his adult life. Something Christians evidently despise.

    “Anyway, I like a president who get a little action…”

    Like p0rn stars, other people’s unwilling wives, Russian prostitutes, underage prostitutes, and a host of women whose abortions he certainly paid for.

    Luckily Christian Conservatives have foregone any pretense of giving a crap about their professed values, otherwise that would be a problem for him. We all know its “values for thee, none for me”.

  • Are they a protected class? Is anyone looking for a legal privilege to treat them badly? Nope. They are even facing the consequences of their uncivil actions like grown ups. Not any way like you would.

    “Please state when and where I ever suggested that anyone should be sued for not wanting to participate in Christian ceremonies and activities”

    “Participate in ___” is a dishonest euphemism for simply denying goods and services in open commerce. It is objectively no different from any other form of obvious discrimination. Calling it something else or pretending there is some other rationale behind it does not change its malicious venal and immoral nature.

    Your need to rephrase the action into something that sounds different betrays the vacuity of your position. It is nothing more than glorified excuses to act maliciously to others, harm them and seek some special privilege over others.

    Your entire position is all about the immature desire to harm others with no consequences.

  • So you couldn’t produce an instance. Too much talking again, not enough thinking.

    So some “classes” are more equal than others, eh? Well, that’s a far cry from “you have to serve ALL the public.” It also makes hypocrites out of libs — but then so do a lot of things.

    And yes, ironically enough, political affiliation is a protected class just down the road from the Red Hen in DC, in California — and in your own state. Due to frequent liberal tantrumming, eventually there will probably be more.

  • The motivation behind Jim Crow was a lot more complicated than mere “social superiority,” which does not require any segregation.

    No businesses say “we don’t serve your kind” to gay people. Because they serve them all the time. What they don’t serve is same sex weddings.

    But it sounds like YOU are the one who has been treated badly by your social superiors. Here’s a hint: talk less and you’ll present better.

  • Not really. There were elaborate rationales at the time to make it look more complicated or justifiable, but in the end not really. Just a desire to exert power over others as social superiors and act maliciously with impunity to an “out group”.

    You can try to gussie it up with phony euphemisms and using religion as an excuse, but in the end its all pretense.

    “No businesses say “we don’t serve your kind” to gay people.”

    That is exactly what they are doing. They are singling out gay customers to deny them the full services and goods generally available to everyone else. Your argument is akin to how people were forced to sit only in the back of buses or could not sit down in a restaurant but could get takeout.

    You are just rehashing the same lame excuses for segregation of old, to try to institute segregation in a new form. Same old garbage. Same immoral crap. There is no reason anyone needs to “compromise” with such beliefs. No reason to expect respect for them either.

  • Adopting a gay-self-identity is ALWAYS a choice. Acting on that false identity (i.e. homosexual behavior, gay marriage, etc) is a choice too.

    And for those who want to break all those chains and escape, well THAT’s a choice too. The right choice. There’s helpful people who can provide assistance and encouragement in walking out and living out that choice.

    http://www.restoredhopenetwork.com

  • Wasn’t taking your request seriously. There is nothing genuine about your position.

    You are trying to pretend the people in your lame example faced no consequences of their actions. After all you want none for far more pernicious and pervasive kinds of misconduct. It is not only immoral but immature.

    Your post at this point is just hurling insults and accusations.

  • Ok, but for the purposes of this
    discussion assume that you can tell that person X is gay, that still doesn’t justify discrimination.

    It’s only about behavior for certain people and when I say ‘behavior’ I mean a method of comportment and communication that the
    person cannot help nor should be required to alter in order to receive equal treatment. Discrimination is discrimination whether it be due to race, sexual orientation or otherwise. This is very analogous to racist behaviors of the past, lunch counters etc.

    The jury isn’t out, no legitimate medical or psychological association suggests that homosexuality is anything but innate.

    There’s no sure-fire way to 100% verify many conditions depression, anxiety etc. that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    I don’t care if he hires or serves nor do I care if he finds providing equal treatment offensive. I’m under no obligation to respect his beliefs. Bottom line, If he’s not providing equal services, then he is discriminating, period.

  • Wrong on all counts.

    1. Sexuality is not evident from birth, the fact that it manifests as behavior later is irrelevant. It is analogous to racism due to being discriminated against due to characteristics the person cannot help.

    2. Dems have indicated that they will pursue the Equality Act which will amend the civil rights act. They won’t get it done with this president, but democrats have
    noted that it is high priority and will likely be approved by the next dem president.

    We’re talking about bakers here, not attorneys who may feel that their biases could influence their work and are thus required to recuse themselves based on the principle that all clients are entitled to the best representation. Acting is too limited as a profession to accurately assess, but yeah I can’t demand Kirk Cameron appear in my movie, but I don’t believe casting works that way. You may have a case for ministers in that religous organizations don’t pay taxes and are regarded as private institutions, but that’s an anomaly.

    We are winning, case after case affirming LGBT rights. Popular opinion is with us and continuing to climb. 60% of Americans currently oppose allowing businesses to discriminate based on religious objections.
    https://www.prri.org/research/emerging-consensus-on-lgbt-issues-findings-from-the-2017-american-values-atlas/

    As you can see in the above article, public opinion has definitely NOT begun to swing the other way, quite the opposite. It is extremely unlikely that a constitutional amendment will be implemented when public opinion is largely in favor of expanding lgbt equality and religious influence is fading especially among the youngest generations.

  • Sure they faced consequences. Very expensive market consequences, which were entirely legitimate. Not legal ones. Nothing that involved the government playing kindergarten teacher to perfectly free and autonomous adults.

    What was not “genuine” was your entirely false accusation. But it’s well-known around here, after all, why you call everyone liars.

  • Democrats changed the morals game when they ignored Clinton’s indiscretions. Not only did they ignore it, but they told the rest of us that morals doesn’t matter.
    Soooo, like the big lib I am; I follow like a drone.
    Sooo, if trump cops a feel every once and a while; who cares?

  • What a garbage excuse. Morals are more than what consenting adults do with each other. You certainly never had a handle of what they are.

    Nobody prompted Conservative Christians to act like feckless self interested hypocrites. They just took the opportunity to turn subtext into the obvious.

    Behind all that bullcrap about values voting and concern for public morals was nothing but bigotry and malice. Looking for excuses to act badly to others.

    It’s funny how you can never seem to justify a position besides making crap up and blaming irrelevant distant past figures. Always too afraid to defend what is done now.

    To relate this back to relevant topics, when a conservative Christian wants to call out the sins of others, they can all get bent. Their opinions of morals and values are worthless. Nobody has to care. There is no need to compromise with hypocrites, liars and bigots.

  • Still trying to polish the terd of “separate but equal”. The market is not sufficient punishment. Segregation is not a valid goal. Your bigoted malice towards others is not worth protecting by law

    How funny. You are still immaturely demanding special legal privilege to avoid consequences of actions.

    Government has a duty to protect its citizens from unnecessary and preventable harm. We have laws to allow for redress when wronged in a civilized manner.

  • Nope she tried to lie her way out of mine. Honesty is not a strong point for you guys.

    You guys are so immature whiny babies. You want to treat others in a manner you would never accept if done to you. So obviously this is about seeking special privilege to harm others without consequence.

  • No business owner who provides a service should be forced to provide said service if his or her religion says such service is immoral. Freedom of religion for all. Constitution is a great thing.

  • “Separate but equal” had an extensive and complicated history behind it, one that to some extent actually affected interstate commerce. Nothing of the sort is present in any of this. Government does not have a duty to micromanage human relationships. We have laws that award damages but in these cases substantive damage is conspicuously absent. Wounded fee-fees is about the sum total of it, and that is simply part of adult life. It is stunningly juvenile to run to some authority figure to make other people play with you. Not to mention pitiful.

  • Wouldn’t matter because there is nothing in the law as far as I am aware that protects a KKK person from acts of discrimination.

  • Wrong on all counts.

    “1. Sexuality is not evident from birth, the fact that it manifests as behavior later is irrelevant.”

    So it differs from race. End of that story.

    “2. Dems have indicated that they will pursue the Equality Act which will amend the civil rights act.”

    Indeed. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

    The aftermath of Obergefell v Hodges, such as the persecution of Jack Phillips in Colorado, is going to doom that effort.

    It is more likely that religious rights against that sort of thing will be reinforced.

    “We’re talking about bakers here …”

    We’re talking about artists, the First Amendment, the right to free speech.

    Yes, if Jack Phillips were selling identical 12 inch double layer chocolate cakes, all the same and all in a row, he’d be a cake supermarket.

    But that is not what he is doing, and he did not refuse to sell to LGBT people.

    “We are winning, case after case affirming LGBT rights.”

    Of course that seems to have stalled in the last year.

    “Popular opinion is with us and continuing to climb.”

    Uh … no.

    Americans are quite tolerant, up to a point. Stepping all over religious rights is one of those points.

    “60% of Americans currently oppose allowing businesses to discriminate based on religious objections.”

    https://www.prri.org/research/emerging-consensus-on-lgbt-issues-findings-from-the-2017-american-values-atlas/

    That’s some pretty amazing spin.

    “Most religious groups in the U.S. now support same-sex marriage, including overwhelming majorities of Unitarians (97%), Buddhists (80%), the religiously unaffiliated (80%), Jewish Americans (77%), and Hindus (75%). Roughly two-thirds of white mainline Protestants (67%), white Catholics (66%), Orthodox Christians (66%), and Hispanic Catholics (65%) also favor same-sex marriage. A slim majority of Muslims (51%) favor same-sex marriage, but only 34% are opposed; 15% offer no opinion on this issue.”

    It mentions “religious groups”, which in ordinary speech would mean religions – e.g., the Southern Baptist Convention.

    But that’s not what it means. It apparently asks (a) “Do you want to overturn Obergefell v Hodges?” and then (b) what denomination do you identify as?

    Nor are we provided the question or questions that were asked.

    For good reason.

  • “Bottom line, If he’s not providing equal services, then he is discriminating, period.”

    Which he appears to have every legal right to do in this case for reasons which appear to be well over your pay grade.

    I can compel someone engaged in interstate commerce to sell 3.5 ounce cans of dog food to anyone who can lay cash upon the counter in payment.

    I cannot compel someone to paint paintings, create art, make a speech, defend as a client, engage in psychotherapy, for or with someone contrary to their beliefs. That is compelled speech and it is unconstitutional.

    It’s why children cannot be compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

  • In your country or in ours?

    In our country certain behaviors which constitute “acts of discrimination” are protected as free speech or religious practice.

  • ANY behavior is a choice.

    People who cannot control their behavior wind up in either prisons or institutions.

  • Keep your head in the sand if you like, it’s evident that even despite Trump LGBT rights are advancing, and thankfully he won’t be around forever.

  • Separate but equal policies in the era of segregation were offensive and wrong because they were state sanctioned restrictions on public services. That is completely different from private businesses not serving customers in a way that would contradict their religious convictions. Apples and oranges.

  • “That is completely different from private businesses not serving customers in a way that would contradict their religious convictions. ”

    No, its the same exact thing, you are just not honest enough to own up to it.

    Like how people would discriminate in their private businesses because they felt God needed to keep races separate. Same..exact…thing. Just because the target of your bigotry is different, doesn’t make the actions any less immoral.

    You want segregation, pure and simple. Separate but either equal or inferior businesses for gays to use besides the ones open to the general public that you control. You are recycling garbage arguments which were lost 50 years ago.

  • Richard Rush’s knee-jerk LGBT propganda [ant-Christian propaganda] needs to be exposed for what it is: ” . . . a stew of fallacy, delusion, fantasy, gullibility, hoax, sophistry, chicanery, fraud, scam, etc. . . .”.

  • When push comes to shove, you are arguing for segregation. You can try to divert the discussion as to the origins of its legal application long ago, but it doesn’t change what you advocate for.

    Discrimination in open commerce is not an acceptable action morally or legally. It makes no difference the source of your prejudice here or how you choose to rephrase the action of denying goods and services to people. Its the same thing in all objective respects.

    There is not a single shred of honesty to your view. Its all about making excuses for bigotry and trying to avoid the consequences of harming others.

    If churches choose to support such actions, so be it. Just don’t expect others to consider it acceptable and face the inevitable results of choosing to define yourself by hate.

  • When scream comes to stamp, you always end up back where you started: your own uninformed, emotionally driven, projection-laden and clumsily-expressed opinion.

    Merry Christmas Tater. Try working on the minority rights assignment over the Christmas holidays. 🙂

  • Its not screaming or stamping. Its simply cutting through the fog of dishonesty, self-styled privilege, and deflection you are trying to put up here.

    There is no way your position here has any moral or ethical basis. Its just trying to make a repugnant idea look more presentable in public.

  • I am also not surprised that Catholic bishops signed on to this refusal to sell out the teachings of the Church in the name of some feel-good pablum.

  • Thank you for admitting that the left intentionally set up anti-discrimination laws in a manner where they would remain free to discriminate against people that they find morally reprehensible.

  • Should an Evangelical motel owner be forced to rent to a black couple if he sincerely believes the Bible tells him that black people are less than human?

    Congratulations. You’ve just re-litigated Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States.

    How’d that work out for the motel?

  • Doesn’t matter what you personally believe about religions. The Constitution says their freedom is protected.

  • “They definitely do not represent most Catholics, probably not even the Catholics in their own dioceses/archdioceses.”

    Bishops are not the elected representatives of the members of their dioceses. Their function is to proclaim the Catholic faith to said members of their dioceses.

  • Correct on the first part, dead wrong on the second. Remember the Constitution? Free speech? Don’t matter? Our whole civilization has been shaped by religion.

  • Ginning up “Christians” to object to the presence of gay people (and others) in our society is a way for some white men to stay in power.

    Unfortunately for my country, my fellow white Evangelicals fall for this, over and over.

    While I pray for my country and the people who are being harmed by my religious brethren, I also pray for the repentance of my brethren to reject hatred and to embrace the person and religion of Jesus.

    Who knows? It could happen!

  • You’ll have to explain the connection between this and the topic of this article.
    This is a public business operating under the laws of the United States, not a religious charity which is exempted from the strictures of federal and state law.
    Heart of Atlanta Motel, LLC. v. United States settled the case that businesses open to the public are subject to all civil rights laws.
    I look at the words in red in my bible for what Jesus said.

    And yes, this is an issue ginned up to get the easily manipulated white Evangelicals outraged about being subject to secular law in a secular business. puerile
    Sadly, white Evangelicals can’t see how this is further staining their witness. They are becoming seen more and more as simply hateful and intolerant of people who’ve done them no harm other than just existing.
    I work with gay people and straight and have yet to find an example that would lead me to dehumanize gay people.
    Perhaps you have more experience in this & can share why is important to you to push them out of our society?

  • This is fake news at its finest. You have 2 very small Christian organizations, when compared to all of the Christian organizations that won’t support some parts of this, yet the clickbait of “may tear evangelicals apart” is a total lie. I am making no claim to the validity of the proposal only that the claim in the title is absolutely fake news.

  • “Trump’s sexual behavior, therefore, is none of our business either.”

    There is the heart of the Evangelical movement.

    What gays do is wrong & must be stopped.

    What Trump does is beyond our investigation, let alone our criticism.

    (No slight here personally whether you are Evangelical or not. You just summed up the Evangelical position very, very neatly.)

  • I suspect the goal is to break the supremacy of the Civil Rights Act, which will lead to the re-establishment of white superiority & dominance & the re-oppression of black Americans.

    The legal destruction of black chattel slavery was replaced by Jim Crow. The Civil Rights Act helped to destroy legal segregation, but the desire by white Evangelicals to put black Americans “back in their place” is still quite strong, and if they can get the CRA overturned for gay Americans, then they can use the identical arguments to begin re-discrimination towards black Americans.

  • There is nothing is christianity that says you cannot be kind to everyone. In fact, your Jesus said the opposite.

    You and your ilk simply need a common enemy, someone to hate. It is the only to maintain what little unity you have.

  • Ken Starr investigated Clinton, who is white.

    Mr. Obama is a family man, a good father and husband, without one hint of scandal except the birther crap manufactured by white supremacists.

  • Some members of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei were nominally Christians, some were not.

    Despite some pretensions to being compatible with Christianity, once in power the Nazis dropped the charade and openly pursued an “Aryan” religion.

    “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. [On a question from C. S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Fuehrer continued:] No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. . . . The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.” – “Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944″. Trans. N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens (3rd ed.). New York: Engima Books. LCC DD247.H5 A685 2000. ISBN 9781929631056.

  • We have to remember when evangelicals talk about sexual ethics it includes no gay sex, no premarital sex, no sex unless it’s for procreation even in marriages, no masterbation, no sex toys, no sex for fun or just to show affection, even though all these things were legal and common during the time of the bible writers. Sex between women was common and not considered sex because there was no penis involved.

    Let’s not forget who these wacky people really are and what they really want.

  • Pure Nietzsche, whom Hitler greatly admired.

    Politicians were snake oil salesmen in Nazi Germany just like they are now.

  • What gays do may be wrong but nobody is trying to stop them.

    I have both a cousin and a childhood friend who have lived very comfortable and prosperous gay lives matter in large Southern cities for the last 40 years — both of them in wedding industries, no less. Absolutely no one has tried to stop either of them.

    And neither of them has tried to force anyone to “affirm” them, either. Nor do they care for the attacking of businesses like Mr Phillips’ through law. Know why? Because every dollar that the alphabet club wants to force into Mr Phillips’ or Mrs Stutzman’s pocket out of spite is a dollar that could go into their pockets instead.

    Simply do as you please and leave everyone else out of it, m’kay?

  • If Catholic bishops are not the elected representatives of members of their dioceses then why are they so involved in trying to influence civil government on issues of civil rights and laws? Especially when they know they do not represent the way most Catholics view how those issues should be reflected in civil laws and civil society?

    Think of issues like gay marriage or contraceptives in health insurance or even adoption by gay couples. While the bishops have the power to require that institutions they control act as the bishop/teaching demands, their actions do not always reflect the real sense of what most Catholics think about those issues.

    So, let them talk to their parishioners and members of their dioceses. But what they cannot do is say things like “Catholics believe…” when they are talking to the press or Congress or elected officials. What they have to be careful to do is to specify they speak of a teaching and Catholics who do not think the teaching is correct then need to speak up. Most importantly, we need to be sure that civil elected officials not think that what the bishops say represents how a particular issues is viewed by the Catholic voter.

  • “…no sex unless it’s for procreation even in marriage…”
    “no sex for fun or just to show affection,”

    You obviously don’t know many evangelicals and want to paint them all with the same brush.

  • the moderates who are just watching the extremists from the sidelines and doing nothing to save their religion are just as guilty. the people making the news are in the drivers seat. roy moore saying gays should be in prisons, cruz trying to make sex toys and masterbation illegal, franklin graham wanting to allow firing people because they are gay and not serving them in businesses, those are the leaders.

  • Non-responsive to the question.

    How did it work out for the owner involved in the Heart of Atlanta Motel, LLC. v. United States when he tried to use personal and religious beliefs in order to discriminate against black Americans?

    That question is easily answered.

    Sometimes it’s just easier to avoid answering, and I understand that as well.

  • Which is all that these people–people!–are asking.

    Do your job that you advertise that you do for everyone else, equally, and let these people go on with their lives.

    When I go to the grocery store or barber or gas station, no one asks me if I’m heterosexual before they perform the service or sell me goods. They don’t inquire as to my Christian beliefs. They just do their jobs.

    Gay people should have exactly this. The right to be treated as equals to everyone else.

  • “When I go to the grocery store or barber or gas station, no one asks me if I’m heterosexual before they perform the service or sell me goods.“. That is because there is nothing morally objectionable about haircuts or selling food off the shelf.

    Participating in a same sex wedding, on the other hand, can not be anything other than objectionable. The problem is the event, not the people.

    It’s a crucial difference that many can not, or will not, grasp.

  • Although strictly speaking the SCOTUS is not supposed to evaluate religious beliefs, one may rest assured that they ALL were aware that there is nothing in either the scriptures or the 2000 year old tradition of Christianity that supports racial segregation. It was a peculiarity of modern America, a social taboo that arose out of a specific set of circumstances and which people tried to shoehorn into the Bible to dress it in respectability — exactly as we have seen people try to shoehorn same sex marriage into scripture in our own day. They have also noted that it what they were trying to biblically justify was not even true racial segregation — for they had no problem with intermingling of other races, only other races with whites.

    However, the SCOTUS has already granted, within Obergefell itself, that repudiation of same sex practice is rooted in decent and historic religious principles.

    There is no equivalence, period.

  • The only thing religion has done is cause divisiveness, hatred and conflict. It’s a filthy parasite and leech that has contributed nothing to humanity but to let the worst people in the world pretend they are not the worst people in the world. Religion is nothing but a great big stinking turd.

  • My comment addressed a misunderstanding of Bishops being the elected representatives of their diocese”s members – as if they were akin to Congressmen. They are not.

    As for Bishops protecting pedophile and Lavender Mafia Priests, they – and all those Priests – should be defrocked and jailed. But that is a matter for Catholics and law enforcement to attend to, not me.

  • I can’t grasp it because it’s a fantasy.

    No one providing a service to an event is participating in it.

    I used to work weddings as the physical coordinator. Setting up chairs. Hanging the set decorations. Making sure the lights were focused. Setting up sound. Checking with the musicians. I did this for a living for over a year.

    In all that time I watched maybe 150 weddings. In NONE of them were there any more participants than the officiant and the wedding couple. Those are the only participants.

    The bridesmaids/groomsmen are witnesses in the wedding party.

    That’s it.

    There was never, to my experience, a wedding where a cake was part of the wedding ceremony. It might be different in your church, but in our church, if there was a cake, it was in the reception, which was typically after the wedding.

    So this idea that someone who sells a cake for money is a participant in a wedding is piffle.

  • Oh good lord.

    You are entirely ignorant of 350 years of American history, where white slavers defended their enslavement of black chattel slaves by using the Bible. The Bible wasn’t “shoehorned.” The Bible commands slavery in instances of war or debtors, for example. The New Testament does not even demand that Christians give up their enslaved humans–and all this is thoroughly, rigorously documented in hundreds of articles, letters, sermons, analysis, essays, and speeches by both the North and the South.

    Good lord. Your ignorance is astonishing, and I am embarrassed for you for saying these words.

    Obergefell is all about how no religion can control secular law in the United States. If you have a religious objection to same-sex marriage, then you don’t have to have same-sex marriages in your church.

    However in the secular public square, you will have to provide the same level of service and respect to all your customers without inquiry into whether their religion coincides with yours.

  • This is so completely a-historical that it doesn’t even rise to risibility.

    Here’s a posting from just today that analyzes the place of white American Evangelicals and their participation in the causes of Jim Crow and lynching.

    https://thewonpercent.wordpress.com/2018/12/23/expecting-emmanuel/

    White Evangelicals formed as a response to the ideas of integration and federalized Civil Rights.

    The White Christian Councils (renamed later “White Citizen Councils”) were formed to keep uppity Negroes in line. The KKK was Christian society formed to ensure the white purity of America. The Moral Majority was founded not to fight abortion but to fight the encroaching federal government’s requirement that schools which took public money could not discriminate by race, specifically Bob Jones University & its policies of racial exclusion (no black Americans allowed) and then segregation (some black Americans, but in separate quarters).

    Your education has badly betrayed you if you think Christianity in America has somehow not been thoroughly entwined with racism and segregation and racialized hatred.

  • Thank you for making us aware of this! 🙂 Christians cannot compromise with the Devil under NO circumstances!

  • We were talking about racial SEGREGATION, Einstein. Not slavery. The scriptures never address race in any way, shape or form, much less mandate segregation based upon it. You just wasted a lot of bandwidth on foolishness.

    No, Obergefell was not about religion. It was a Due Process Case, just like Roe, and was equally off-base because neither rested upon any constitutionally enumerated power.

    Your last sentence demonstrates that you completely fail to grasp the nature of the issue presently before the court. But you’re certainly not alone in that, around here.

  • In all of that blather one thing is, as always, conspicuously absent — the actual scriptural case for racial segregation. No one here has been able to produce it yet. If you think you can, feel free.

    I know that Christianity in America, and everywhere else, was thoroughly entwined with the abolition movement, first in the early Middle Ages, then later after the First Great Awakening. No other system of belief or thought ever provided a compelling rationale for it. It was the universal default of pre-Christian human civilization and continues to this day in non- Christian parts of the world.

  • About a year or do ago someone else tried to make this same nonsense argument. Within a few short minutes I easily pulled up a dozen websites for wedding cake artists who all appealed for customers with “Let us be a part of your special day” or “Let us help celebrate your love” or “Let us create a cake which expresses the union of your unique personalities.” And so on and so forth ad infinitum. Looks like THEY see it as participation.

    I noticed something else in the process — a growing number of online cake artists who make a variety of standard cake designs and deliver them to the given addresses with no contact or involvement with the parties at all. There will be more of these as the alphabet club gets more resentful and determined to attack those who will not affirm them.

  • The falsely so called “Christian” colleges, which are up to their eyeballs in government money, will do whatever the sodomites tell them to do to keep getting the money. Just watch.

  • Accept it – no. Put up with it – yes. Just as they have to put up with our atheism and your over-the-top vitriol.

  • Ignore fanatics like Spuddie. I’m a religious conservative who’s been involved in this compromise effort for years. Many LGBT persons are not like Spuddie; they really just want their own space to live and are happy to grant it to others. Yes, they need some basic protections in employment, housing and public accommodations; we all do. But they are not trying to put churches out of business or destroy people’s ability to hold traditional views regarding marriage, family, gender and sexuality. Spuddie and his/her ilk want to fight forever until traditional views on sexuality and gender are treated like racism. But everyone else sees the difference. So again, ignore them. Seek for peace in civility and reasonable legal compromises that protect religious freedom and LGBT rights. It can work.

  • “If Catholic bishops are not the elected representatives of members of their dioceses then why are they so involved in trying to influence civil government on issues of civil rights and laws?”

    1 – They are religious leaders.

    2 – The state should conform to the laws of the Creator.

    “Especially when they know they do not represent the way most Catholics view how those issues should be reflected in civil laws and civil society?”

    Catholics are free to, and do, express their wishes to their elected officials and vote.

    “Think of issues like gay marriage or contraceptives in health insurance or even adoption by gay couples.”

    In Catholic teaching, following the Natural Law, the state should conform to the laws of the Creator.

    “While the bishops have the power to require that institutions they control act as the bishop/teaching demands, their actions do not always reflect the real sense of what most Catholics think about those issues.”

    There is no obligation, as moral teachers, to take polls of Catholics, faithful or unfaithful (e.g., the crowd at National Catholic Reporter).

    “But what they cannot do is say things like ‘Catholics believe…’ when they are talking to the press or Congress or elected officials.”

    They don’t.

    Read their materials.

    They say things like “the Church teaches”.

  • Yep, and there is every bit as much in the xtian bible against dark-skinned people as LGBTQ people. The scriptural basis of xtian hatred of dark-skinned people is that they are the god-cursed sons of Ham. In fact, there isn’t a single “out group” for which one cannot find scriptural support against—not one.

  • nope – free to discriminate against anyone unless protected by law. Legislation is modeled on existing legislation as to what that might be. Can’t say the left.

ADVERTISEMENTs