shackles

The Gay Gestapo Brings Back Slavery

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Slavery, by definition, is involuntary servitude. It is being forced to provide labor or produce a product against one’s own will.

When a man is forced, under threat of being sent to jail, to do work that he would not do unless he was compelled to do it, he is no longer a free man but a slave.

We fought a brutal civil war over this very issue, and took a pledge as a nation that we would never tolerate slavery again.

Apparently someone forgot to tell the Stormtroopers in the homosexual movement about the civil war, the civil rights movement, and freedom of both will and conscience.

The leaders of the Gay Gestapo have become our new slave masters. They can now send us to the hole if we refuse the massa’s demands.

Jack Phillips is a baker in Colorado. He was ordered on Friday by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (what a mockery of a name) to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, despite his deeply held religious convictions that marriage, by God’s design, is exclusively the union of one man and one woman and that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Not only is gay marriage a mockery of God, it is still flatly illegal in Colorado. So Phillips is being threatened with jail time for refusing to participate in something that is forbidden by Colorado law. (The couple got “married” in Massachusetts, and wanted to celebrate it in Colorado.)

It would be as if a farmer could be ordered by the Nebraska agriculture department to grow marijuana, in violation of state law, just because it is legal in the state of Colorado.

Now folks can call a sexually deviant relationship a “marriage” if they want to (who will stop them?) as long as they don’t use the power of the state to label it and legalize it as a “marriage” and compel others to call it a marriage too.

This Colorado commission threw out the First Amendment to the Constitution by declaring that Phillips’ religious freedom does not trump asinine state discrimination law. That would be news to the Founders, who so believed in the unalienable right to freedom of religious expression that it was the very first liberty they protected in the Bill of Rights.

It should be noted that Colorado’s discrimination law also makes it a crime to discriminate against somebody based on “religion,” which of course is exactly what this sham commission has done to Phillips. If anybody ought to go to jail over this, it ought to be Colorado’s civil rights commissioners, who apparently could not recognize anti-Christian discrimination and bigotry if it bit them in the leg.

Here’s hoping Phillips files the mother of all discrimination lawsuits against the state of Colorado, and teaches them a legal and constitutional lesson it will not soon forget.

Not only is Phillips being reduced to slavery, he is now the victim of tyranny as well since he is being compelled by the government to violate his own conscience.

So meet our new overlords, the new owners of the American plantation, the gay mafia. All hail Big Gay, our new slave masters.

It is time for all American citizens of conscience and principle to stand athwart history and yell “Stop!” at the top of our lungs. The Gay Gestapo must be stopped in its tracks, immediately and decisively, before all freedom, whether of the religious or civil kind, vanishes from America.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

comments

  • http://expatriato.blogspot.com/ Muscato

    Fischer is, as always, a hysteric and a hyperbolist; in this case, he is also a borderline liar. The baker was found by Colorado’s civil rights commission to have violated the state’s public accommodation laws; there is not and never has been any possibility of jail time associated with the commission’s actions. Rather, the commission has put in place a series of remedial actions that only require the business show it is working within the parameters of the state law. If those who oppose public accommodation laws dislike them so, they should work to change them, an effort in which I wish them luck.

    In the meantime, if you offer a service to the public, you have to provide it to all kinds of customers. And please, please, don’t raise straw horses such as kosher butchers being forced to sell pork – we’ve gone over that time and time again.

    [That said, I wonder how long until someone raises BarbWire's favorite twin slurs, pederasty and bestiality? Such a flattering thing to impute to my boringly respectable marriage of more than a decade...]

  • Nos Rob

    But, Bryan, if Christians have the right to do business according to conscience, so does everyone else. If we arrange society so that we don’t have to help, provide a service or care for those whose lifestyles or beliefs are contrary to our own, we end up with a society that operates only on exclusion.

    Christian cake-makers who won’t deal with gay couples will be matched by homosexual providers who won’t sell to Christians; Muslim shopkeepers who object to non-Muslims won’t have to serve them; vegan restaurateurs will, on principle, bar meat-eaters; atheist surgeons will be able to deny treatment to the religious. Such a society could not function because we would all, at some point, be excluded, while at others we would be those doing the excluding. ‘Slavery’ has got nothing to do with it, as you well know.

    Conscience-based rejection of others, taken to its logical conclusion, can only lead to the breakdown of civilised living, with its reliance on interdependency and mutual cooperation. There is nothing biblical about living according to ‘principles’ that demand others be ostracised. On the contrary, Jesus demands that his followers give unconditionally to anyone and everyone who asks.

    • 1776Mariner

      Hmm… I guess you have never been in business. One can choose to refuse to serve those who don’t follow dress codes, for example. So one can refuse to serve people for various reasons. Or hadn’t you noticed? Free exercise of our religious beliefs is a basic Constitutional right. This right to freely exercise one’s religion is so much more important than a dress code. But you probably think it is okay to deny a person service because they are not wearing proper attire, yet cannot deny service because of religious beliefs that prevent one from participating in a celebration one finds morally wrong so as not to give anyone the impression that one sanctions such. Yeah, right. Gays do not want equal rights. They want special rights even if it infringes on the rights of others. Mafia is a good name for the LGBT.

      • L1011

        Tell me where in the bible it says for followers of Christ to refuse to do business with, transact with, or interact with non-Christians in order to live out their faith?

        • turfbarn80

          It doesn’t, ut because homosexual behavior is described as an abomination, it follows that forcing a Christian to accommodate perverted behavior is wrong. People have died for the sake of their conscience in the past, and they will probably suffer persecution for it in the future, while the Gaystapo pats itself on the back for “improving” the world.

          • Walt NYC

            No one is being forced to accommodate any type of behavior. A baker is being asked to bake a cake. It ends there. He never even has to leave the confines of the bakery, and he certainly doesn’t have to participate in the wedding.

      • Gareth Willis

        There’s a huge difference between qualifying customers based on some criteria which are intrinsic to the product on offer, and blanket discriminating against customers because of your own personal prejudice. If a bank reserves a particular type of account for people with a minimum of $50,000 to invest they are not discriminating against poor people. It’s just that particular product is tailored to a certain segment. Dress codes are enforced only where there is a fit between a certain way of dressing and the experience an establishment is trying to create. That’s why a 5-star restaurant might have a dress code but McDonald’s doesn’t.

        What you and Mr Fischer are proposing is that business owners should be allowed to arbitrarily discriminate against customers, not for reasons to do with the product or service being offered, but because of the personal beliefs of the owners. Now, if your business is offering a distinctly religious product – say trips to Lourdes – I guess it’s fair enough to refuse to take atheists and Muslims as customers because the product is not designed for them. A cake shop owner on the other hand has no essential reason to refuse to serve anyone. (Unless they market themselves as a no-gay cake shop, in which case at least they’re up front about it and the market will judge the value of their product as markets do.)

        Free exercise of your religion allows you to believe and preach whatever you want. It allows you to perform your religious duties as long as you do not impinge on anyone else’s rights in doing so. If your religion, for example, held it as a duty that you should murder a stranger every Friday, you would not be free to pursue that duty, for obvious reasons. Your religious freedom does not give you the freedom to act in any way you want, harm others or discriminate against people with whom you (or your religion) do not agree.

        Allowing homosexuals the right to marry the person they love is not giving them additional rights, it is giving them the same right that you enjoy, and it infringes on your rights not one jot.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Only one person had their rights infringed — the baker. The homosexuals are forcing others to act like they BELIEVE in gay marriage. They are imposing their beliefs on others.

          Otherwise, the gay person could just go buy a cake from another business, and both the Christian baker and the homosexual could believe what they want. And LIVE according to those beliefs.

          Christians sell to homosexuals all the time…cakes for a birthday, donuts for work, cupcakes for a school party, etc. But a marriage is a religious event to a Christian, and they should not be forced to promote or participate in events that they don’t agree with. So, it’s not discrimination against a PERSON, but an EVENT.

          • elmo5159

            “The homosexuals are forcing others to act like they BELIEVE in gay marriage. They are imposing their beliefs on others.”

            WRONG. It’s all about equal treatment under the law; no one cares what you believe. The business owner has no right to refuse service, despite what signs may be posted in ANY business. Businesses do not have religious beliefs, and business owners agree to abide by ALL state and federal laws when they apply for business licenses, and that includes anti-discrimination laws.

            “a marriage is a religious event to a Christian, and they should not be
            forced to promote or participate in events that they don’t agree with.
            So, it’s not discrimination against a PERSON, but an EVENT.”

            WRONG. Providing goods or services for which one is paid is not “participating” in an event; it is called “doing business”. BTW, marriage may be religious to Christians, but in this country, it is strictly a civil contract, which is why so many non-religious people marry. In addition, Christians are not the only religious people who marry — and approximately 70% of all homosexuals also consider themselves to be Christians.

            Get over yourself.

      • Dan

        You are the one proposing special rights for yourself. Gay people want everyone to be treated equally in the public marketplace.

        Dress codes apply equally to all customers. Same with health codes, ete. They cannot single out orthodox Jews for example. Most places that require coat and tie, provide them.

        Pejorative terminology, while a popular tactic for stigmatizing those you wish to harm, fails as rational argument. The author’s reliance on it, demonstrated his argument relies on emotion rather than logic.

    • JohnCNY

      Well said.

    • turfbarn80

      You don’t understand the difference between “rejection of others” and refusing to be co-opted into other peoples’ most outrageous demands. Should bakers have to make penis shaped cakes for batchlorette parties, or portray sex in frosting just because someone demands it? Your fear about the breakdown of civilization if we can’t compel everyone to meekly acquiesce to everyone else’s demands is hysterical. Saying no is hardly a “breakdown of civilization.”

      • Steven Schwartz

        Should bakers have to make penis shaped cakes for batchlorette parties, or portray sex in frosting just because someone demands it?

        If they do not offer that service, then no. Things like cake shape are a service.

        But they do not get to go “Oh, I disapprove of bachelorette parties, therefore our standard K-27 cake? We won’t make that for you.”

        This is just a slightly-better disguised version of the oft-refuted “They’ll make kosher delis sell pork!” argument.

        • turfbarn80

          People deserve to draw their own moral line in the sand, given the fact so many gays have a hair trigger sense of indignation over Christian behavior. I suggest they try the gay yellow pages instead of forcing everyone else to cater to their perversion. These poor businesses shouldn’t have to honor group weddings, polygamist weddings, or child weddings either. Stop trying to shove your tired, sodomite ethics down everyone else’s throat.

          • Steven Schwartz

            People deserve to draw their own moral line in the sand, given the fact so many gays have a hair trigger sense of indignation over Christian behavior

            And if everyone drew their own, we would have chaos. The laws are in place to ensure that the public square actually *works*.

            given the fact so many gays have a hair trigger sense of indignation over Christian behavior.

            It’s far more often the other way around — heck; when GLBT folk hold hands in public, or kiss, they often (not always, but often) get told to take it inside, or that that is somehow “shoving it down someone’s throat”.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      They do not have the right to refuse service just because a person is gay. So, they sell cakes for a birthday, donuts for work, cupcakes for a school party, etc. But in this case the baker is not discriminating against a PERSON, but refusing to participate in or promote an EVENT.

      • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

        Except that the cake would (logically) be sold to a PERSON, not an event.

  • 1776Mariner

    Great commentary Mr. Fischer. Yeah, the gays believe they have more rights than the rest of us.

    • Gareth Willis

      The ‘gays’ as you call them, currently have fewer rights than you. What they are asking for is equality before the law. What Mr Fischer is asking for is additional rights for Christians. Unless he is proposing that every business owner owner should be able to refuse service to anyone whose lifestyle, religion, sexual orientation, gender, race, nationality and political views they find objectionable.

      • Dan

        While he focuses on promoting discrimination and segregation of gay people, what he proposes would promote discrimination and segregation of any group of which he or anyone else disapproves.

  • Gareth Willis

    So let’s say that I, as an atheist, own a cake shop and a Christian asks me to bake a cake in the shape of a cross for a christening. Should I be allowed to refuse if I feel it’s against my conscience to participate in and enable – even in such a small way – a religious ceremony? Or are we proposing to give only Christian business owners the right to discriminate against people on the basis of their lifestyle choices?

    • Jeanette Victoria

      Actually I believe you should have the right to refuse just as a Jewish baker should have the right to refuse to bake a Swastika shaped cake for a Nazi function

      • Gareth Willis

        Fair enough. I would hope any baker would refuse to bake such a cake. So let’s get rid of all anti-discriminatory laws and allow customers, by voting with their wallets, to decide what’s acceptable discrimination and what’s not. The only rule is that every business must publish a list of the groups against which it discriminates.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          No need to publish a list people figure this out pretty fast. I grew up in the 50’s we has the FREEDOM to associate then

          • Dan

            Yes, it was fine if you were a white Christian. Segregation and discrimination did not make those who faced segregation and discriminatino feel free though. Your desire to return us to the 50’s ignores what life was like for minority groups.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            I lived in Cali we didn’t have the Democratic instituted Jim Cow laws.

          • Dan

            Yet discrimination was rampant in the 50’s even in Ca. You want to return us to that time.

          • thisoldspouse

            The 50’s was an exceedingly freer and better time than our current situation, including for racial minorities. The unemployment rates, illegitimacy rates, and crime rates were much, much lower among blacks, as well as for society in general.

          • Dan

            Clearly, you did not live as a black person in the south, or as a gay person anywhere, during that time.

          • thisoldspouse

            Even homosexuals had it easier. AIDS, and the host of other potentially deadly STD’s associated with that behavior, was no where near what that are now.

          • Dan

            Gay people were routinely fired from their jobs, denied housing, arrested, imprisoned, and tortured.
            Life was not easier, but far more difficult.

            You continue to confuse sexual orientation with unprotected high risk behavior with multiple partners. Sexual orientation does not cause disease, most gay people are not infected, and straight people catch all of the same diseases.

          • Rob T

            I’ve been out for 30 years without acquiring a “deadly STD.” But in the 50s I would have had to worry about being fired, blacklisted, institutionalized, or lobotomized just for being gay.

          • Gareth Willis

            Yes, just ask Alan Turing how easy it was to be a homosexual in the 50s.

          • Gareth Willis

            The freedom to associate is not the same as the freedom to discriminate. To my knowledge the former has not been proscribed (except if you want to join a union or protest against Wall Street or an illegal war).

          • thisoldspouse

            Yes, the freedom to associate is EXACTLY the freedom to discriminate.

          • Gareth Willis

            Not entirely. Discrimination is actively negative: I wish to exclude X. Association is positive: I wish to include Y. The latter says nothing about your feelings towards X, or singles X out as being different, and in no way curtails your freedom to NOT approach X and offer your association. You only need to discriminate if X approaches you and wishes to enter into some sort of relationship. That is why discrimination is legislated against and association is (more or less) not.

      • Dan

        Laws against intimidation and harassment would protect you from baking the swastika cake.

        You would also need to normally make custom shaped cakes.

    • Dan

      First question is, do you normally make custom shaped cakes? If not, you are not required to do so. You are not compelled to do anything you don’t normally do for money.

      But laws against harassment and intimidation would protect you in certain situations, but probably not the one you propose.

      • Gareth Willis

        OK, I was over-egging the example with the cross-shaped cake, but the question still stands; is this proposed sanction to discriminate based on one’s personal beliefs to be extended to all business owners (and maybe employees too) or just Christian ones?

        • Dan

          I believe the discrimination laws being promoted require a belief for the excuse, but do not specify whether it is Christian belief. So Muslims could dicriminate against all others beliefs, Chrisitians against all other beliefs and even Catholics against Protestants, etc.

          Discrimination and segregation have always worked out so well in the past….not.

          • Gareth Willis

            How about atheists against irrationalists?

    • thisoldspouse

      Absolutely, you should be able to choose to do business with whomever you wish, for any reason, or without any reason.

      Of course, you get too discriminating (not a bad term at all, we all have to discriminate every day in life) and you choke off your business. Let freedom and economics be the controlling factor, and we can all get along fine.

      • Dan

        History does not support your belief. Minority populations of all kinds are at risk for segregation when discrimination is allowed.

        • thisoldspouse

          Minority populations already self-segregate, so that is a dead argument. How many “gay bars” are there? How many black universities? How many exclusively black caucus groups and advancement orgs are there?

          Forcing unnatural, untenable associations only breeds resentment, on both sides. Minorities, at root, know that they are not receiving genuinely voluntary treatment, but at the point of a gun. Products and services unwillingly offered are always going to be suspect as inferior or tainted.

          You can never legislate respect, only compliance. And business owners forced, at the point of a gun – and that is ALWAYS the ultimate threat of legislation, if not complied with – are going to ultimately resent the groups who use these laws as a bludgeon to force behavior that the “aggrieved” group knows are repugnant to the service/product provider.

          • Rob T

            How many black universities? How many exclusively black caucus groups and advancement orgs are there? Forcing unnatural, untenable associations only breeds resentment, on both sides.

            Did you really mean to make it sound like whites and blacks studying and working together is “unnatural.” I’m sure you don’t believe that, but it’s interesting how easy it is for your reasoning to go there.

          • thisoldspouse

            Associations are unnatural when FORCED.

            Please learn to read and comprehend.

          • Rob T

            Please learn to write clearly. The obvious interpretation of “Forcing unnatural relationships” is “Forcing relationships which are unnatural.”

            Try it with other words. For instance, no one would interpret, say, “Forcing new ideas on people” to mean that ideas are new when forced (you can, of course, force an old idea on someone). No, they’d interpret it as “Forcing ideas with are new.”

            So, really, learn to write clearly before you place the blame on the reader for interpreting what you wrote exactly as you wrote it.

          • Dan

            Today, unlike the past, no one is required to attend an all black University, and straight but not narrow people are welcome in gay bars. Only those who cause problems are asked to leave, as in any establishment.

            Despite the emotional exaggerations of you and the author, no force of arrest is required by public accommodations laws. Civil remedies are used.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Minority populations already self-segregate, so that is a dead argument.

            Of course, how many of those institutions were created at a time when it *wasn’t* self-segregation?

            Let me give you a clue: historically black colleges weren’t founded because black students didn’t want to go to the schools in existence, and gay bars did not spring up out of a sense of wanting to exclude straight people. Once a cultural institution exists, just because the majority culture deigns (or is forced) to remove the restrictions that caused it to come into being does not mean said institution ceases to exist.

      • Theodore Fenton

        Agreed. And I take it you’re personally okay with businesses in Mississippi that have proudly displayed the “We don’t discriminate” signs in their places of business.

        • thisoldspouse

          I don’t have a problem with freedom, which includes putting a political, dishonest sign in their window. The truth is that they DO implicitly discriminate.

          • Rob T

            In what sense was the “We don’t discriminate” sign dishonest?

          • thisoldspouse

            The fact that is has to be said at all, absent evidence of past discrimination, is a big clue.

            It’s the old “thou doth protest too much” principle.

          • Rob T

            So you have no actual evidence the signs were dishonest. You do love to make these claims that you can’t back up.

          • thisoldspouse

            AGAIN, the posting of a sign at all is political, pushed by a political group. For what purpose, may I ask, if a business is not known, or doesn’t have any overt signals of discriminating?

          • Rob T

            To indicate that they have no intention of using the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act to turn away any business from same-sex couples.

            That’s perfectly useful information for a company to convey.

            Again, though, I see that you have no actual evidence, and are only offering up speculation as if it were fact — speculation that, in order to be credible — must ignore actual facts about the state’s recent legislative history.

      • Gareth Willis

        OK, then let’s also get the government entirely out of the marriage business. Repeal all state-endowed benefits to married couples and allow private organisations (both religious and secular, non-profit and for-profit) to register marriages for whomever they wish.

        Banks, insurance companies, private hospitals and other businesses which offer special products or terms for married couples can choose which marriages they want to recognise, as can employers when they offer benefits packages.

        Couples have to pick the right marriage package for themselves, just like they choose tailored private health insurance packages now. Want your spouse visiting rights recognised by a particular hospital? You need to add that right to your marriage package and make sure the organisation marrying you is recognised by your chosen hospital. Want your marriage recognised by your religion? Then you need to choose an organisation sanctioned by your religion to marry you.

        Let the ‘invisible hand’ of the market determine what marriage rights are, who gets them and who recognises them.

        Perhaps, like insurance, couples would need to renew their marriage every year as well, and pay a marriage premium to continue to access the benefits they derive from being married. If marriage is something that society as a whole values, and if the free market is really the expression of those values (as determined by people voting with their wallets) then the benefits of being married, even if you have to pay for it, would be greater than co-habiting or being single.

        Perversely, being made to annually evaluate the worth and meaning of their marriages might make people value them even more. So rather than eroding the idea of the family such a system might actually strengthen it. It would of course allow for several definitions of what a family or a marriage is, but at least it would be we the people (via the market) doing the deciding, in freedom, rather than religions or the state.

  • 19gundog43

    Let’s see the Rainbow Reich demand a Muslim baker bake a cake for their faux “marriage”. That should be a ticket selling event I would attend.

    • Terry Lee

      It’s always the Christians the gays have to voice their frustrations at, precisely I believe because they know they can. Muslim taxi drivers recently refused to drive cabs for the company they worked for because the cabs had advertising on the roof for the gay games.

      Where was the gay gestapo then? Why was’nt there an uproar? The muslims were acting out of religious convictions, so I don’t see how that differs really. They would’nt even sit in the cabs for so called fear of offending allah.
      There was no reaction by gays about that. No cries of being persecuted or discriminated against. Why? Because the gays know full well that the muslims don’t give a damn, and would’nt hesitate to stone them, or put them to death by hanging.

      No, the gays pick on those they believe they can trample on, intimidate or put out of business without fear of retribution or danger to themselves. We Christians suit their needs nicely – we may voice our objections, but thats as far as it goes, and they know that. They know that Christians will mostly turn the other cheek and not respond beyond words.

      It really is pathetic.

      • Dan

        There was an uproar, and some Muslims have been fired for refusing service to gay people. Muslims do not get a pass. It is simply that most anti-gay laws and policies have been promoted and imposed by those who use Chiristian beliefs as an excuse.

        Your belief is not supported by the facts, well documented in our long history of anti-gay laws, including the current push by some Christians to impose laws that allow them to discriminate and segregate.

        • thisoldspouse

          I thought the cab drivers were just reassigned? Someone really needs to get this story straight. The fact that there was so little follow up on it leads me to believe that there was no recrimination against the drivers.

          • L1011

            Most cab drivers are independent contractors. Several quit until an arrangement could be made with other cab companies and Cleveland Hopkins.

        • Terry Lee

          I don’t usually comment here, and that is because I don’t like what I see here a lot of the time. What is meant to be a discussion board or a place to comment, mostly just turns into a place where pro-gay advocates, and Christians alike just end up trading insults with one another.

          I truly want discussion, and I already regret my last posting because it was the exact thing I despise being part of.
          I thank you Dan, for pointing put to me that there was something said about the muslim taxi drivers……I don’t have all the answers myself and I’m not arrogant enough to think I do.
          I still believe the muslims get a pass, at least much more so than a Christian ever does. I am a Christian. I believe in God’s Word. It’s not up to me to decide if I can approve of or dis-appprove of homesexual behavior, marriage or ideals……as a Christian I cannot give the homesuxal lifestyle my ‘blessing’.

          God has already made the decision about what behavior is acceptable and what is not, and as a child of HIs, I can only do as His Word commands. With that said, I don’t think homosexuality is any more wrong than two hetrosexuals engaging in sex outside of marriage – they are both equally guilty of sin before God.

          All I try to do is live my life for God as best I can, in the way He has called me to, and I fail miserably in terms of sinning myself – just in different ways and areas. I really am not here to judge or insult……I genuinely want an open and mature conversation about different matters. I am not obsessed with ‘homosexuality’, but I do have some genuine questions to which I seek answers regarding it.

          Nothing said here by either side is ever going to change the beliefs of the other, and I think we could all agree on that – but what could come about is a better understanding of each others beliefs, which may at least allow us to live together on the earth without all this crap.

          I’ve sat here day after day reading the insults that hurled around here on this comment section, and at times I’ve almost been embarrassed to be a Christian when I see the behavior of some who call themselves that, and read say what they say. Those who are pro-gay behave no better and do no more to advance your cause or beliefs either.

          I’m sorry that my beliefs offend you, but I have no choice in the matter of what is right or wrong, and I’m no better than anyone else when it comes to sin.
          I just think it would pleasant to log on here one day and see an actual conversation take place, but I don’t think I’ll hold my breath.
          I really only meant to point out my thanks to Dan, for pointing out to me something I was’nt aware of. I don’t suppose I will really have made any friends on either side today, but such is life.
          I would just like to remind the Christians on here who they representing, and to think about how He would wish you to behave. I am in no way suggesting compromising your beliefs, but a little more compassion and empathy can never hurt.
          God bless.

          • Gareth Willis

            Terry, I’m so glad you wrote that because, while I absolutely agree that a more nuanced, respectful and intelligent discussion would be great, I think one of your comments above highlights why it is always going to be difficult.

            You say that “God has already made the decision about what behavior is acceptable and what is not”. This doesn’t leave much room for discussion, and leads me to ask you what further genuine questions (about homosexuality, for example) could you possibly have?

            As an atheist I (at least try to) base my morality on empathy and reason, so I can tell you exactly why I believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and why we should not discriminate against those who practice it. The reason is that I believe what consenting adults choose to do among themselves, if they harm nobody else, is entirely up to them, and laws should apply to everyone equally.

            You seem to have simply accepted what you have been told for no reason other than you believe God said it. To me this is abrogating your responsibility as a moral agent in favour of just following instructions. Which can lead some very good people to do some very bad things. Do you know why what you call good is good and what you call bad is bad? What evidence and reason is there to back up your conclusions (other than God said it)?

            I don’t claim that I am right, or that secular morality always gets it right, or even that there is an objective ‘right’ answer to anything. But what I will (try to) do is always question my beliefs and continually reassess my reasons for holding them based on whatever evidence there is. Given that Christian morality has changed considerably over the last 2,000 years, I don’t see how you can be absolute about your beliefs either.

            I believe it’s this difference in how we approach questions about our beliefs, and about the world, that is at the heart of the rift in our society between liberals on one side and conservatives (usually religious) on the other. And I think it’s this which stops us from having sensible discussions and reaching compromises, because the more one side becomes entrenched so does the other in opposition. Which is ridiculous as, in reality, both sides do evolve their beliefs over time.

            I think we need to take time out from just arguing our respective positions to educate one another on our methods for arriving at those positions in the first place. What reason and evidence, or other process, do we use? What common method can we find to evaluate each other’s beliefs?

            Any thoughts?

          • Terry Lee

            ,Hi Gareth, it’s a pleasure to read your reply, and I would be happy to continue this or any discussion further, but maybe not all out over this comment board. I ‘followed’ you on here, and would be interested in communicating further in more a more private manner.

            I will however give you a brief history on myself as it may help you see that I am not just blindly following God without good reason.
            I grew up going to Catholic school although, I was not one myself, and they did the job of convincing back then that God was not for me.
            Being young, and knowing everything I decided at first to be an atheist, convincing myself the Bible and it’s message were rubbish. I decided that evolution was the answer as to how we came about, and that science had/would prove that. The thing is though, that if I am going to follow or subscribe to something, especially something that will shape my ideals, views etc, for life, then I want to know all I can about it.

            I began to study evolution, and did so for quite sometime. The thing was, the deeper I got into it all,, the more things did’nt add up……in many areas and in many ways. There were huge holes in the science, a lot of supposition, much fudging of facts and a dismissal of anything that did’nt agree with what they had already decided had occurred.

            I was forced to reassess my views, and without going into exactly what occurred and what/why I came to believe and place my faith in God and His word (at least not on here), that is what happened. I just wanted to give you an idea of what I am like, and I assure you I put the same diligence and effort into finding out about Christianity, it’s roots, beliefs etc, before I gave myself up.

            I would like to share with you the rest of my story and perhaps hear yours if you are willing? I enjoy good discussion that is intelligent and cordial, and I’m sadly lacking it at the moment.
            As for the questions for gays? Well, I don’t suppose they are that out of the ordinary, I would just like to be able to sit and talk to hear their stories. I’m not gay myself, but I do understand they are not going anywhere, and I like to understand those I live with.

            My ideas are not set in stone, but my faith is.

            It will remain that way too I hope, but it does’nt mean I can’t enjoy good conversation and exchange views/opinions etc. with others from all walks of life.

            Hope you have a good day Gareth, and hope we can chat again soon.

          • Gareth Willis

            Questioning everything sounds like a good philosophy Terry.

            However I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that if evolution is wrong then Christianity must be true. Evolution is a science, so all it ever will be is our best current understanding of the evidence. Any or all of the details could well turn out to be wrong. That’s how science works. The big picture though – backed up by the fossil record and genetics – is that lifeforms on Earth have evolved over millions of years. It’s difficult to argue against that, and even creationists accept it to some degree (well, they accept super-accelerated ‘microevolution’ over a few thousand years).

            So for me it is a huge leap from “I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence for evolution” to “this particular God, one of thousands of ancient tribal gods, who also just happens to be the God of the religion predominant in my home culture, definitely created the universe”. How can you justify that?

          • Terry Lee

            Nice to hear from you Gareth, I can tell already I am going to enjoy, and I hope learn from our discussions. You are right Gareth….it is a huge leap, and one that as an atheist you may not fully grasp, or even accept, but I hope at the end of it you will have a better understanding, although it may not come out all at once.

            I cannot compress 18-20yrs into a couple of sentences, or do God and the journey there justice either. It will probably be as we chat that I will open up with more personal accounts. I’m not very trusting Gareth, and at times too trusting….so bear with me hey? It’s something my girlfriend/fiancee has trouble with, but I’m expecting more of you:-).

            Yes, I know we only understand things based on their evidence, and our understanding of that evidence at the time. It may or may not change or be true or not…..we don’t know. Already you are far beyond most people I talk to, because you acknowledge that science is fallible…….not many do, especially if they grew up in the 50’s & 60’s.

            You will admit the fossil record is woefully incomplete? With some great liberty taken with some of that as well? Whole animals have been created by scientists from two to three fragmented pieces of fossil or bone – with nothing to go on that is impossible, especially if it’s a new species. The missing link is still ‘out there’, and there has been no proven jump from one species to another….which would have to take place if we evolved from….whatever. Macro evolution/micro-evoloution is just that microscopic. Yes, there are documented cases of it occurring, but it’s all within the same family – bird to bird, fish to fish etc. Never has it been shown to change a duck into a elephant for instance….all just theory.

            Anyhow, I am sure that much of this you already know, and I am not trying to educate you, but rather gain a better understanding of you, where you are coming from. What you will accept, and not etc Is that ok?

            I suppose before we go much further, I should ask you how open minded you are? It will decided in a way, just how far we can go on any given topic.
            You already admit science is fallible, and that it does’nt have all the answers which is helpful.

            The thing I’d like to know is do you consider other scientists, their opinion and work worthwhile and relevant, and I mean the type that think out of the box, who don’t always follow mainstream, establishment, white coat type science we see in our text books, on the news, or in ‘peer reviewed’ papers?

            There is a lot of science, archeology, and so forth that is buried away, and not talked about in polite scientific circles. A lot that is real and relevant, by any standard, but is disregarded because it does’nt fit with mainstream science and it’s calculations.

            I am wondering if you are familiar with any of it, and whether or not you’d give some of it a chance? I guess I need to know that firstly Gareth. Do you know for instance that many of the worlds greatest history buffs and historians now acknowledge the BIble as the most accurate and well backed up book on ancient history and culture there is on earth today?

            Anyway, I’ll let you answer. One more question a little off topic – Do you believe gays are born that way? Or is it a choice?

          • Gareth Willis

            Hi Terry. I might be answering your questions backwards here.

            No idea if gays are born that way and I couldn’t care less. It’s none of my business what consenting adults get up to in their bedrooms as long as they aren’t hurting anyone. And everyone should have the right to marry the person they love otherwise we may as rip up the principle of equality before the law.

            If you’re talking about fringe science, then a lot of that stuff strays into conspiracy theory territory, and while I don’t rule anything out I tend to believe that if something is fringe there’s a good reason for it: i.e. there’s not yet enough evidence to support it. Unless you believe there’s a global conspiracy between governments and scientists to suppress some technologies, theories and evidence. My position is I’m skeptical of almost everything – including conspiracy theories.

            I’m not sure how long you spent studying evolution to determine that it’s false, but your comments above are I’m afraid typical of someone who doesn’t really understand how evolution or science works. Yes people have made evidence up or taken conclusions too far based on a few fossil fragments. Ask yourself how you know that? Who called out the fakes or said “hold on a minute, that’s not a reasonable conclusion”? Other scientists. Science is a self-correcting methodology. Let me address a few particulars:

            The fossil record is incomplete you say. Given the rarity of fossilisation it’s a wonder it’s as complete as it is. Plus there are probably millions of fossils we haven’t discovered yet, and we may not ever discover them all. What the fossil record clearly shows is common descent over time, as you can trace phenotypes and features all the way through the record as they develop. Remember all it takes to disprove evolution is one fossil found in the wrong layer – say a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrain – and that kind of thing has never happened.

            Missing links. Unless you expect one of every generation of every creature that ever lived to be found as a complete fossil you will always have ‘missing links’. The fact is there are thousands of so-called transitional fossils. Tiktaalik being probably the most famous. What you have to realise is that nature doesn’t ring-fence species like we do. Every species is a transitional species between its ancestor species and its future descendant species. The accumulation of imperceptibly tiny changes in a group of organisms over tens or hundreds of thousands of years eventually sees it develop into one or more new species. If you demand a transitional fossil for every little change you will always be able to point to gaps.

            A duck would never give birth to an elephant, or the duck species transform in the future into an elephant. They are on different branches of the evolutionary tree, having shared a common ancestor long before the dinosaurs appeared. It’s a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works and what it predicts to say something like that (not just with your duck / elephant but any two species, even if you pick close relatives like a wolf and a dingo). It’s as ridiculous an argument as saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or marine fossils on mountaintops disprove evolution. I hear these from creationists all the time, and yet you say you studied evolution to arrive at the conclusion it’s not true. The arguments you make do not convince me that you did.

            Finally I’d like to go back to my original question: even if evolution is not true, why does that make Christianity automatically true in its place? What justification do you have for believing that out of the thousands of gods and religions man has followed, that the one that is the dominant religion of your time and culture just so happens to be real, while all the rest are man-made and false? Why, even if evolution, the Big Bang and everything science believes were proven to be false, would that automatically make it true that the god of a small bronze-age tribe created the Universe in 7 days and now takes a personal interest in the minutiae of his creation’s lives, judging them against his own arbitrary moral standards before sending them to heaven or hell for eternity?

          • Dan

            Many Christians support inclusion of gay people and oppose discrimination and segregation.

            Many also believe the bible prohibits lust, abuse, and harming others, but not committed relationships based on mutual love and respect. Despite modern English
            interpretations and translations, many Christians agree the bible prohibits pagan ritual orgies with prostitutes of both sexes, animals, and objects, but not love.

            But no matter which interpretation you choose to believe, the problem results when some want to use the law to impose their beliefs on the entire population, despite the fact many believe differently. This is why the Constitution requires liberty and equal protections of the law for all persons, not just the popular majority.

  • Cheyenne W.

    While as a business owner I agree that you should be allowed to refuse services under certain circumstances, why not just claim that you’re “too busy” when you don’t want to do something, rather than deal with a lawsuit? It just would seem to be a heck of a lot easier. As a gay man I would never ask someone to perform a service that they were not comfortable doing as I can spend my money elsewhere. Don’t want to bake a cake for me? Fine, I won’t sue you… I bet that I can find 5 others to make the cake and not care.

    • thisoldspouse

      You are a reasonable and respectful person, then.

      • Cheyenne W.

        Normally if I don’t want to perform a service, I just claim to be “too busy” or “booked up” and that solves the problem without it going further, although normally I reserve that comment for the truly annoying.

        • Dan

          While a small business can get by with that, it would be different if you were HobbyLobby, etc.

        • thisoldspouse

          That tactic is going to backfire on you eventually, when the turned-away customer notices you providing services to a new customer.

          Better to be honest and up-front, instead of skulking in avoidance.

    • Dan

      It seem you have never been to Terhune, or many small Mormon run towns in the southwest. You don’t always have a choice, and if everyone in town shares a similar religious belief, you would be effectively run out of town. Laws that allow discrimination in public accommodations also allow segretation.

      • Cheyenne W.

        I will have to admit that I have not been there, but most of my family on one side is Mormon. I am not suggesting that we allow legal discrimination, I am just saying that one should pick one’s battles, and a fight over a cake seems silly to me.

        • Dan

          While a fight over a cake is hard to defend, the laws they want, allow denial of all food, clothing, and shelter. The cake is just an excuse to promote laws that allow total discrimination and segregation.

          Again, small towns could easily segregate. In the past, black people could get stuck in a town that wouldn’t sell them gas to leave, food to eat, or a room for the night.

  • ConservativeSurge

    For all the rancor being leveled at Mohammedans for their sharia and hatred of free speech, it is stunning that Americans, as a whole, can’t see the homegrown “enemy of freedom” walking among them.

    Sodomites openly and vocally oppose free expression and actually advocate against religious freedom and tolerance, yet Americans ignore them and even treat them as valuable members of society.

    This Colorado baker is among the first victims of their organized movement against free expression, and he certainly won’t be the last.

    Wake up!

    • Steven Schwartz

      t is stunning that Americans, as a whole, can’t see the homegrown “enemy of freedom” walking among them,

      It’s true — most Americans don’t see that the same religious-based threat to freedoms is already here in the United States, in the form of those Christians who believe their religious rights trump the law, or who believe the secular law is, instead, supposedly based on, and should be brought into alignment with, Biblical law.

      Many of them here on this site, even — quite a few in this comment thread! ;)

    • Dan

      The baker was not burdened by the request to bake a cake, which is something he chose to do on a daily basis, for money. He isn’t being forced to do anything he doesn’t do all the time. How the cake is used once it is paid for, is irrelavant. They can have a food fight, if they choose. His approval is not required. He is not a participatnt. He is a service provider. Your waiter is not a dinner guest.

      The enemy of freedom is discrimination and segregation, not equal protections from abuse in the public marketplace.

      If you want to prevent sharia law, you need to prevent laws that rely on any and all religious beliefs to justify denial of equal treatment and protections.

    • portertx

      A Cake is a Cake – not an religious act – he is the hired help – he is not asked to officiate the wedding, just bake a cake which he does for the public for a price. . He would be just as at fault if he stated that he only bakes Christian Cakes for Christian Weddings, performed in accordance to his specifically held religious beliefs.

      Public Accommodation – means to accommodate the public. N ow if he wants to open a private club bakery where you have to be a member to get your baked goods he has that right.

      Just as the franchise owner of a Florida Arby’s only wants to server fast food to “whites only” and is making is a private club to get around anti-discrimination laws.

  • Rob T

    By Fischer’s reasoning, ALL anti-discrimination law is slavery. There is nothing in his reasoning that allows him to say the being required to do business with blacks or Jews is any less “slavery” than doing business with gays.

    • thisoldspouse

      Yes, they all ARE slavery.

      • Rob T

        At least you’re consistent.

      • Dan

        Absurd.
        Slaves could not choose what to do for a living, and how much to charge for their services.

        Business owners choose what goods and services the provide for money to the public. Requiring them to do what they choose to do every day for money, to anyone who can pay their fee, is not slavery.

      • HarryVB

        Do you wish that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would disappear? I suspect you believe that Jesus would have supported separate water fountains.

      • ErickMN

        Everyone wipes the floor with you here, again and again. You must enjoy being repeatedly slapped across the face. Hilarious!

        • Guest

          Really? I’ve never seen that. All I’ve seen is you losing, loser.

      • portertx

        Really – so you are property of someone less and not paid?

        Define Slave (NOUN) someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      No, only when religious people are discriminated against in the name of “anti-discrimination” laws.

      • Rob T

        Why only when the law affects religious people? Fischer says:

        When a man is forced, under threat of being sent to jail, to do work that he would not do unless he was compelled to do it, he is no longer a free man but a slave.

        He doesn’t restrict this to religious people being forced under threat of law to do something. No, he puts this forth as a general principle, so by his reasoning, ALL anti-discrimination law is slavery.

  • Walt NYC

    Bryan Fischer’s entire assertion is not only ludicrous, it is an affront to actual slaves. To request that a baker, who voluntarily chose his profession, to provide a service (bake a cake) and be rewarded monetarily for it, is absolutely NOTHING like slavery in any way, shape or form. Once Fischer makes such a patently false comparison, his argument, which was already flimsy at best, completely collapses.

    • Dan

      Well said. It is absurd to compare being required to provide the public accommodations you choose to provide for money on a daily basis, to everyone, to slavery. His argument relies on appeal to emotion rather than logic and reason.

    • turfbarn80

      Even slaves received rations and an occasional change of clothes. They still couldn’t refuse the work, just like the gaystapo is trying to do to us today.

      • Walt NYC

        “Even slaves received rations and an occasional change of clothes.”

        What does that even mean? You think slaves were actually treated better than Jack Phillips is being treated? I hope that’s not what you are implying. You can’t possibly be that irrational.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      “Voluntarily chose his profession”

      And then unvoluntarily forced from his choice of a profession by the homofascists.

      • Walt NYC

        Get your facts straight. No one is forcing Phillips to shut down. If he closes the bakery, it’s his decision. But, hey, at least he’ll still have a clear conscience.

        • Get YOUR facts straight, idiot. You are NOT ALLOWED to be a homosexual at all, it’s a crime, and pandering to a pervert is also a crime. Stop trying to force people to commit crimes, you criminal.

          • Steven Schwartz

            You are NOT ALLOWED to be a homosexual at all, it’s a crime

            I don’t know where you live, but I’m very glad it’s not the United States of America, where it is not a crime.

          • Walt NYC

            You clearly have absolutely nothing to add to any conversation. In America, it is not a crime to be a homosexual. Sadly, it’s also not a crime to be a complete idiot. Grow a brain, why don’t you?

          • Guest

            It IS a crime, and you’re a criminal. You belong in prison, Nawk.

  • Rob T

    Does Fischer realize that sexual orientation anti-discrimination law doesn’t give special privilege to gays? It applies to gays and straights in the exact same way. So if gays are “slavemasters” over straights, then the exact same law makes straights “slavemasters” over gays.

    Which of course makes it hard to argue that EITHER group can be called “slavemasters.”

    • thisoldspouse

      Why don’t you tell that to the homosexual hairdresser who refused service to Gov. Martinez in New Mexico solely because of her position on marriage?

      • Rob T

        You see the problem with what you’re saying, right? The hairdresser denied serviced based on the customer’s position on a political issue (which is legal in New Mexico), not based on her sexual orientation (which would be illegal). There’s no evidence that the hairdresser turns people away for being straight.

        • thisoldspouse

          So, you APPROVE of discrimination, except for special groups.

          But you miss the point that the belief that marriage is a man/woman proposition IS a religious belief for many people. So, this was religious discrimination.

          • Rob T

            Please remember this: My first post simply pointed out that sexual orientation discrimination law works in both directions, and my second post pointed out that your counterexample did not disprove this.

            No where in there is any statement that I approve of discrimination except for special groups. Don’t know where you got that.

            Second, if you want to make a case that this was religious discrimination, go ahead, but that’s a different topic, separate from the point I was making that sexual orientation discrimination law works in both directions.

            We can head off in that direction if you like, but only once we’ve settled this original issue.

  • QuestionsEverything

    “It would be as if a farmer could be ordered by the Nebraska agriculture department to grow marijuana, in violation of state law, just because it is legal in the state of Colorado.”

    Fischer apparently does not understand how comparison works. Growing marijuana in Nebraska is illegal, baking a cake to celebrate a same sex marriage is not illegal.

    • Dan

      Yes, he ignores the fact no one is being required to do anything they don’t normally do every day, for money.

      He also ignores they also get to choose how much money they will charge for the goods and services they provide. His promotion of discrimination and segregation relies on irrational appeals to emotion rather than rational thought.

      • turfbarn80

        Why not go to the gay yellow pages and leave Christians alone? I have yet to see gays attack Muslim bakers with their demands. It’s easier to pick on Christians, isn’t it?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Actually, if someone goes to a random bakery, in this country, the odds are much higher they’ll go to a Christian-owned one than a Muslim-owned one. I don’t know where you get the idea that it was an “attack” — *every* case I have read about has involved people who were surprised that they were refused, and why. It’s not like there are mobs of GLBT folk rushing around trying to get married so they can terrorize Christian bakers. ;)

          And to answer your first question: because no one should have to feel ghettoized into the realm of “People just like them”. The Supreme Court has already adjudged “separate but equal” as nothing of the sort.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      But the same-sex marriage is not legal. Doesn’t make sense to force someone to celebrate that which is illegal.

      So, what about forcing a state (where it’s illegal) to sell marijuana paraphernalia because pot is legal in Colorado? (Like the cake, the paraphernalia is an item associated with the action.)

      • Steven Schwartz

        But the same-sex marriage is not legal.

        If it’s not a civil ceremony, it’s entirely legal — it’s just not legally *binding* on anyone.

      • QuestionsEverything

        Head shops have existed in several states, long before marijuana was legal in Colorado and Washington.

        This is still a bad comparison, unless you mean a store being forced to sell marijuana paraphernalia to a customer for the explicit purpose of smoking pot, when they currently sell the paraphernalia to customers for smoking tobacco.

  • Dan

    Emotional appeals and stigmatizing, dehumanizing terminology are used
    to obscure the fact the author is promoting less freedom rather than more. These
    tactics are all that is left when no rational argument is available.

    Public accommodations laws are a result of our well documented history of
    discrimination and segregation, directed at a long list of various groups
    including religious groups. These laws help prevent people from being harmed in
    the public square, based on the beliefs of those doing the harm.

    In addition to direct harm from discrimination and segregation, laws
    that accommodate discrimination and segregation, promote as valid, the prejudice
    they indulge.

  • HarryVB

    Once again Bryan goes over the abyss. First of all, cut the Nazi analogies; gay people were persecuted by the Nazis. Second, Bryan’s analysis would be equally applicable to any civil rights law, which would gut the requirement that everyone be equally treated in public accommodations.

    Feel free not to attend a same-sex wedding, but if you run a business you have to serve people who want to have one.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      “Equally treated?” Except the baker. His rights are denied.

      Only one person had their rights infringed — the baker. The homosexuals
      are forcing others to act like they BELIEVE in gay marriage. They are
      imposing their beliefs on others.

      • Steven Schwartz

        So, if someone asks me at a public place to bow my head in prayer, I presume you support my right to continue conversing and ignore the “prayer”, since otherwise, I’m being forced to act like I believe in whatever God is being prayed to?

        If I’m a mailman, do I have the right to throw away mail that I feel is coming from religions that are blasphemous, because to deliver it would be contributing to sin?

        The baker has the right to not sell wedding cakes. Or to sell them to everyone. He does not have the right to pick and choose his clientele on the basis of categories that have historically been discriminated against.

  • Nick

    The commission did not throw out the First Amendment because it grants you freedom of speech, NOT freedom of action. You can say anything you want without limits, but you cannot DO anything you want (including discriminating by denying the sale of products or services) without limits.

    • turfbarn80

      If we don’t have freedom of action, that should mean you don’t have the ability to force moral people to accommodate perversion under the guise of non discrimination. I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant. Try practicing it.

      • Dan

        Denial of goods and services offered to everyone else, is clearly the intolerant position.
        Treating all others as you would yourself, is tolerance.

        You are asking for tolerance of intolerance, which is still intolerance.

        • Guest

          You’re not asking for equal rights, you’re asking for special rights at others’ expense, and want to inflict harm on innocent people. You’re asking for things you can’t have and don’t deserve. No one is denying any necessary services or food, but wedding cake is not a necessity for life. Making a travesty of the institution of marriage is not necessary, and homosexuals only want it out of spite. It doesn’t make them happy, it doesn’t make them normal, and it doesn’t get them accepted. It makes baby turtles sad. Why are you so cruel to baby turtles? You’re a monster, and I hate you.

          • Steven Schwartz

            and homosexuals only want it out of spite.

            And Christians only want it because homosexuals can’t have it, and it makes them feel special and superior. They don’t really care about it ither, but they like feeling smug.

            See how easy it is to make up nonsense about how other people feel and pass it off as truth?

            Then again, seeing your bit about baby turtles, perhaps I have missed your sarcasm, and do apologize. ;)

          • janmit63

            You are so right with this statement. If I did own a bakery I would not deny them a cake, cookies ect., but I would not make them a wedding cake because in Gods eyes they are not married & never will be. And they are making such a travesty of the institution that I believe that sooner or later no Church will even perform any weddings. Also correct that it will never make them normal, happy or accepted (infact it just makes them more unaccepted by Christians because they want to brainwash us us Christians into their way of thinking & are just mad because we rebuke their brainwashing.) The sad thing is they claim we Christians are brainwashed which is a myth, but they do want to brainwash us into believing they are normal & we are way too smart for their garbage.

      • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

        Can I as a public business owner legally discriminate against Christians, by denying them the sale of products and services, employment, etc?

      • elmo5159

        If we don’t have freedom of action, that should mean you don’t have the ability to force moral people to accommodate perversion under the guise of non discrimination. I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant. Try practicing it.

        In the first place, morality is subjective — and how is it that YOU think you can decide what is “moral” for everyone?

        Furthermore, who forced this bigot to go into business? Since he did, he agreed when he applied for a business license to obey ALL state and federal laws — including anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the First Amendment cannot be used as justification for breaking the law.

        YOU try practicing what YOU preach.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      The baker did not want to DO anything for this couple. How is NOT doing something, doing something?

      • elmo5159

        The baker is refusing to provide goods, for which he is paid; the same goods that he willingly provides to others who pay for them. THAT is discrimination.

      • Nick

        Think of it this way: Imagine that there are no go areas in your city where you won’t be served because of who you are. ‘No Arminius’ Zones. Imagine that it’s not because of anything you’ve said or done, but simply because of who you are. How do you feel?

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Freedom of religion does not mean freedom of worship. It means the freedom to LIVE according to our beliefs.

      It’s the homosexuals that are trying to impose their beliefs on people, by trying to force others to act as if they believe in same-sex “marriage.”

      • L1011

        Kill your children for being disobedient, and try to make that argument; you won’t get too far.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          That’s not a Christian belief. And BarbWire had a story about that. It’s part of the Debunking Lies about the Bible Series.

          • L1011

            The bible is rather open to interpretation, in fact some people won’t even bring their children to a doctor because they believe that modern medicines and medical procedures are sorcery and witchcraft.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            And other things are very clear.

          • Guest

            Sirach 38, 1-15
            Hold the physician in honor, for he is essential to you, and God it was who established his profession. From God the doctor has his wisdom, and the king provides for his sustenance. His knowledge makes the doctor distinguished, and gives him access to those in authority. God makes the earth yield healing herbs which the prudent man should not neglect; was not the water sweetened by a twig that men might learn his power? He endows men with the knowledge to glory in his mighty works, through which the doctor eases pain and the druggist prepares his medicines; thus God’s creative work continues without cease in its efficacy on the surface of the earth. My son, when you are ill, delay not, but pray to God, who will heal you: Flee wickedness; let your hands be just, cleanse your heart of every sin; offer your sweet-smelling oblation and petition, a rich offering according to your means. Then give the doctor his place lest he leave, for you need him too. There are times that give him an advantage, and he too beseeches God that his diagnosis may be correct and his treatment bring about a cure. He who is a sinner toward his Maker will be defiant toward the doctor.

            Someday you’ll get a clue, but not today.

          • janmit63

            Its so sad these people are so Bible illiterate, yet they try to use it against us, Which is than a joke, because they do not know what they are even talking about.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          We also don’t offer animal sacrifices.

          • L1011

            I understand that, cause jesus was supposedly the ultimate sacrifice.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Then, stop bringing up Jewish ceremonial and civil laws.

          • L1011

            So. There are many denominations that still believe most or even all of the Jewish civil laws apply.

      • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

        “Freedom of religion does not mean freedom of worship. It means the freedom to LIVE according to our beliefs.”

        —Not when it infringes on the rights of others to live theirs, here in regards to publicly-open businesses. Do we still allow racist christians to close their hotels to interracial families?

      • elmo5159

        Freedom of religion does not mean freedom of worship.

        WRONG. There is no true freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. That means that no one can be forced to live according to the beliefs of someone else, nor can anyone be forced to worship at all.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Ideally, the baker can sell or not sell to whomever.
      And the homosexual can walk down the street and buy somewhere else.
      And the market decides who survives.

      But your way only increases the animosity. If you guys want a culture war, you’re doing exactly what will spark one.

      • Steven Schwartz

        deally, the baker can sell or not sell to whomever.And the homosexual can walk down the street and buy somewhere else.

        Ideally, yes. But of course that shifts all the weight of doing extra work, of hoping they can find someone, of suffering all the extra indignity, on the minority — which is not the sort of country I want to live in, nor, I hope, is it one you do either.

        If you do, then I look forward to the day when you find yourself living in a place where *you* are the minority, and have to hope that you can find a “tolerant” member of the majority to get what you want — and then perhaps you will develop compassion, though from everything I’ve seen, it will merely make you complain even harder about how *you*, and only you, are being persecuted.

  • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

    I may be on shaky legal ground, but based on my research, when SCOTUS threw out the portion of DOMA that discriminated against sexual orientation, I believe it effectively made “sexual orientation” a protected class under the constitution. While it has not been tested in states or towns that lack public accomodation laws, I”m seeing more and more legal analysts say that is the case. Anyone care to weigh in?

  • ErickMN

    Fischer is a raving idiot who only succeeds in further marginalizing conservative christians in the minds of the American people.

  • portertx

    “Slavery, by definition, is involuntary servitude. It is being forced to provide labor or produce a product against one’s own will.

    When a man is forced, under threat of being sent to jail, to do work that he would not do unless he was compelled to do it, he is no longer a free man but a slave.”

    No one has ever gone to Jail; fined yes …but no jail time.

    No one is forced to produce a product or service that they already produce or provide. Not to mention they are paid for the service…..Slaves are not paid, Slaves are also property of the Slave owner.

    Define Slave: (NOUN) someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay

    WHOOPS!

  • Nos Rob

    It all comes down to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. Of course, your ‘principles’ trump any commands of Jesus’, especially this one. It just doesn’t apply to you as modern Christians-of-conscience! It’s you he’s speaking of when he says, ‘why do you call me “Lord, Lord”, and not do what I tell you?’

  • Pingback: ‘Gay Gestapo Stormtroopers Have Become Our New Slave Masters’ Says Religious Right Pundit | The New Civil Rights Movement

  • tiponeill

    Yep – now make me a sandwich Bryan

  • Jimmy_Sr…

    Bryan Fischer is a closeted self hating homosexual. That is all.

    • Steven Schwartz

      That’s not fair to GLBT folk; they don’t want to have anything to do with him. ;)

      • MDB

        AMEN to that !!!

  • PostAmerican

    Did Republicans forget that we live in a REPUBLIC?

  • MDB

    Slavery… what a load of contrived and absolute bull**** !!
    Everyone else is afraid to write this so I will:
    No one ever asked Phillips to go to bed with (or marry) another man < that is what the underlying implications for all of the "religiously held beliefs" arguments have at their core. Saying otherwise, is being more than disingenuous; it is pure hypocrisy.

  • Truth Offends

    How long will it be before a homosexual man targets a Christian wedding-dressmaker, demanding he/she custom make his “wedding” dress?

    • L1011

      Gay men have been making wedding dresses forever. Straight people have been served by gay people in predominantly gay establishments for years and years. I meet all kinds of straight people at gay bars, gay restaurants, etc. Nobody says anything to them, and they could probably even pray before they eat and still nobody would say anything to them.

  • Truth Offends

    How long will it be before two homosexual men target a Christian band to provide entertainment for their “wedding” reception?

    • Rob T

      How long will it be before an interracial couple targets a Christian band that opposes race mixing to provide entertainment for their wedding reception?

      • Guest

        Still pushing that sexual perversion equivalent to race lie, are you?
        At least you’re consistent. How about you do the world a big favor:
        pull your lip over your head and swallow.

        • Rob T

          See, this is the sort of response that makes the world think you have nothing of substance to offer, just nasty ugliness. So keep it up! It’s one of the big reasons opinion has shifted against your side so quickly and massively.

          • Guest

            Opinion hasn’t shifted. You lie to yourself. You’re insane.

          • Rob T

            That’s sad, that’s really sad. But your side’s denial of reality is another reason why we’re winning and you’re losing.

          • Guest

            LOL no, boy, no. You’re imagining things again. See a doctor.

          • Rob T

            Of course. That’s why you won the last four times it was up for a a vote. Oh, wait…

          • Guest

            We did, yes. Then a sodomite judge presumed to over-rule the peoples’ will. That’ll get reversed, as the judge is a criminal.

          • Rob T

            I was being sarcastic. We won the last four times it went up for a vote and you lost. Did you really not know that?

          • Guest

            You haven’t ‘won’ anything. The vote was greatly against you. A sodomite judge spitefully defied the will of the people.
            It WILL be overturned. And even if it isn’t, you still haven’t won anything, except the privilege of destroying yourself. How is that a victory for you? You’ll be held accountable for every molestation you commit, every person you infect, every life you ruin, and you’ll end up in hell. Did you really not know that? Well now you do. Have a nice day, it may be your last.

          • Rob T

            The last time this was up to the ballot box, we won in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington state, and we lost — nowhere.

            Really, it’s astonishing that you don’t know this.

          • Guest

            You’re imagining things again. I can’t help you.

          • Rob T

            Oh, that’s cute. And a bit sad.

          • Guest

            Cry about it. When these wrong laws are overturned you’ll be sent to prison. That’ll be good news for children in your area.

  • L1011

    This whole cake argument is stupid because cake isn’t an endorsement of anything – it’s a stupid cake. It would be like if Delta Air Lines had told a bunch to Operation American Spring loons that they refuse to fly them to Washington D. C.

    Imagine if a group of OASers approached the ticket counter in any U.S. airport to catch a flight to Washington D. C., but after the ticket agents got a look at their patriot hats and conspiracy theory tee-shirts, they denied them boarding. When the OASers asked why, the Delta ticket agents said “We don’t agree with your message, your views, or your movement.” When the OASers asked if they changed clothes, could they then board the plane? But the ticket agents still refused, saying “If we allow you to board the plane, we would be endorsing your movement, along with all your crazy views and plans. Therefore you will not be allowed to board any of our flights to D.C. But however, if you want to board a flight to anywhere else except the D.C. area, that would be fine. We sell airline tickets to ALMOST everyone, anytime, and anywhere . We would even sell you a ticket to D.C. outside of the OAS dates.”

    The OASers respond with “You are an airline right?” The ticket agents reply affirmatively. The OASers then say ” well we are paying customers wanting to buy airline tickets to Washington D.C. no different then all your other customers buying tickets to Washington D.C. ” The ticket agent says again “Yes OASers, we know you want airline tickets, but we just explained that we won’t sell you tickets to the Washington D. C. area over the OAS dates because we feel we would be endorsing the OAS movement, positions, views, and plans. Now if you would like to buy tickets to another destination we will be happy to sell you tickets; otherwise might we suggest you try United Airlines.”

    But hey, at least the Delta agents were nice enough to point the OASers to United Airlines who MIGHT sell them tickets. Being denied service really wasn’t that much of an inconvenience, they just have to start over with another airline. And if United Airlines, along with all the other major airlines, refuses to sell them tickets to attend OAS it’s their own fault because they choose to be crazy conspiracy-theory, Libertarian Theonomists.

    But in reality, Delta would have sold them tickets, even if they all showed up dressed in full Confederate Army uniforms, or decked out in full patriot dress – complete with powdered wigs because Delta knows they are not endorsing OAS – they simply transport people from point A to point B.

  • GlenB

    Phillips was not forced to do anything. He •chose• to change his business in such a way that his conscience is clear and he follows the law.

  • Phillip

    It is always amusing to me when “Bible-thumpers” (most haven’t even read it) envoke the notion of The biblical idea of marriage: should we take example from King David or Solomon? They both had hundreds of concubines and led adulterous lives. Abraham conceived a child by another woman, then, when his wife *finally* conceived, he sent away his first born along with the mother…morals *smirk* It is astounding that people of today are so indoctrinated by this silly book, that was written by ancient men, anything else remanded to the ancient world remains as such, and for good reason. The Bible is so full of contradictions and just general plot-holes. I have no problem with personal religion, but organized religion *is* poison; it always has been. And for those who would like a more religiously organized state, perhaps they should look into The Holy Roman Empire, The Orthodox Church, The Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials…should I continue?

    • Guest

      The Bible only seems to contradict itself to those with a limited mind.
      He who studies the Law masters it, but the hypocrite finds it a trap.
      Your intellect is not sufficient to understand it, so just do what you’re told.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!