MindControl

Forced ‘Sensitivity Training’: The Murder of a Soul

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

I don’t know if I can write this without losing my temper, but I’ll try.

Satan’s servants in Colorado, aka the Colorado “Civil Rights” Division, have ordered a Christian baker–and his employees, including his 87-year-old mother!–to undergo “sensitivity training” until they are pronounced “rehabilitated” from their belief that same-sex imitation marriage is a sin. For two years, they will be on parole, and required to report to the servants of Satan at regular intervals to prove their minds are right.

As is true of every country in this fallen world, there have been plenty of evil things done in America. But now, for the first time, we see tyranny and wickedness reaching out past the body and grabbing for the soul.

If they can re-arrange your conscience, and order your mind as they please, are you even you anymore?

For virtually the entire time the human race has been on earth, in virtually every nook and cranny of the inhabited globe, people have believed homosexuality to be unnatural and immoral. The teaching of the Bible is crystal clear–this behavior is a grave sin, hateful to God.

Now this view, not only handed down by God, but ancient and universal, has been declared wrong and hateful and punishable by persons for whom no language I can think of would be harsh enough. Now a Christian who owns a business, and peaceably lives among his fellows, can and will be persecuted unless he takes an active part in a grotesque parody of marriage that he is convinced is a mortal sin. The triumphant forces of Organized Sodomy, with the State as its strong-arm man, offer the Christian a choice: either you bow to us and disobey God and betray your own soul, or we will destroy your livelihood and make your life a hell on earth.

How long will we allow this to continue?

I am a free-lance writer. Will the day come when two sodomites demand that I write a piece celebrating their mock nuptials, and not only write it, but attend the sham wedding and read it aloud as part of the festivities? Why should a writer be any safer than a baker, or a photographer?

In advance, this is my answer.

NO. NO. NO.

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

  • Martin Rizley

    I think this baker should agree to attend these training seminars on two conditions: 1) First, that he will have full freedom to express publicly his disagreement with the views presented to him by his “trainers” in this multicultural “circus”– and that such freedom will include the right to challenge publicly the views they present to him through reasoned dialogue that involves drawing on a whole range of biblical, rational, and common sense arguments (he promises not to bark at or bite the hand of his trainers, as long as they supply him with treats for good behavior);
    2) Second, that his “trainers” be required to attend church with him during the whole time of his training, and that they be willing to attend a Bible study (taught by him) on God’s design for sex, marriage, and the family– so that they can be educated in God’s wisdom on these issues, delivered from their ignorance of biblical truth, and “deprogrammed” from the intensive brainwashing treatment they received at some institution of “higher learning” from liberal “programmers” to whom they surrendered their minds uncritically at a vulnerable moment of their lives.

    • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

      Criminals do not get to make “conditions” on their sentence. You are silly.

      • Martin Rizley

        Rather, I am lampooning the silliness of this whole scenario, and using satire to deride the extreme wickedness of this judge, who has the audacity of sentencing a man to be “re-educated” for holding firmly to his Christian convictions and refusing to be used as a pawn by the godless social engineers who presently hold positions of power in our government. How arrogant for this judge to treat this man’s Christian convictions as if they were a form of ‘mental illness’ from which he needed to be cured, or the rantings of religious ignorance from which only a ‘secular’ (i. e., godless) education could deliver him. The wicked mindset of this judge reminds me of the mentality of those government thugs who ran the former Soviet Union and sentenced multitudes of Christians to spend time in the gulags in order to be ‘re-educated.’ Yes, those Christians were criminals according to the law of the land, but what blessed ‘criminals’ they were. How I wish that America would be filled to overflowing with such “criminals”! (That’s how such brave souls will always be viewed by a lawless and criminal government).

        • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

          I appreciate that you DISAGREE with the law he has BROKEN. But that still does not change the fact that he is a criminal. Education is a much more tolerant punishment than jail time. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • Martin Rizley

            When it comes to punishment, I believe that punishment should fit the crime. If no crime has been committed that is worthy of punishment, any punishment administered is unjust. To speak of more or less “tolerant” punishments in such a context is ridiculous. All punishments, no matter how seemingly tolerant, are completely intolerable when the ‘higher law’ of justice is itself being violated. For a Christian in North Korea to be punished with ten days of solitary confinement for preaching the gospel instead of ten days of extreme physical torture may seem to the totalitarian mind as a rather “tolerant” punishment– but the question is whether any punishment for the exercise of religious free speech is legitimate. No stipulated punishment can ever be legitimate, if the law criminalizing a particular behavior is itself an unjust law. Therefore, any law which says that those practicing righteous behavior must be ‘re-educated’ because of their insensitivity to others, is itself a criminal law, which no just person can be expected to comply with.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Luckily we live in a country where if you don’t like the law, you can get your legislators to change it. Maybe that should be your tack instead of celebrating criminal acts.

          • Martin Rizley

            The problem is that it takes only one liberal activist judge to overturn the will of millions of citizens and their elected officials who were put in office for the express purpose of ‘changing the law.’ When one leftist judge who believes in “societal evolution” and regards the Constitution as a “living document” can trump the will of the electorate by imposing on the society, through an exercise of “raw judicial power,” his own warped, amoral, arbitrary vision of social justice, then you have a major breakdown in our form of government which cannot be solved with platitudes like “if you don’t like the law, you can get your legislators to change it.” The fact is, elected legislators have changed the law and have sought to safeguard existing marriage laws by state constitutional amendments, but federal judges, by usurping power to themselves they do not have, have legislated from the bench by declaring state marriage amendments ‘unconstitutional.’ The arguments they use to defend their criminality are patently false, inconsistent, and illogical; and thus far, no state governor has been willing to step up to the plate and play hardball with them by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of their corrupt rulings. Your recipe for justice– ‘get your legislators to change the law’– does not seem to be working, because lawless criminals are currently sitting in the seat of power in our federal government who refuse to respect the right of the states to exercise the legitimate power reserved to the states by the Constitution.

            At such a dire moment of lawlessness in a nation’s history, about the only recourse God-fearing citizens have– apart from prayer and urging their elected officials to do the right thing– is to refuse to be used as “pawns” themselves by the godless social engineers who want to compel the entire citizenry, puppet like, to participate in the “moral revolution” they are devising and seeking to impose on our nation through repeated abuses of power. That may mean in some cases engaging in acts of civil disobedience as a form of resistance to tyranny. That is the path this baker has chosen, and I commend him for it. May many follow in his path, leading to a great ‘counter-revolutionary’ movement in our country of citizens committed to oppose homofascism in its relentless assault on religious liberty and free speech.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            So many logic mistakes in your post, but I will only hit the highlights. First, judges can’t “change” the law as you suggest. All they can do is interpret them. And in the case of the “ban on gay marriage” laws that were passed, the judges have found them to be in direct conflict with the constitution. Therefore, as is should be the case, federal law trumps state law.

            And in the case of righting a civil rights wrong, it should only take one judge. Civil rights are not subject to majority rule for a reason, friend. Think about it.

            This baker will pay the price. And if he fights it, he will continue to pay. The only ones being hurt are his own family because of his poor decision.

          • Martin Rizley

            From a practical standpoint, corrupt judges do in fact legislate from the bench when they rely on spurious or sophistical logic to impose on a society , under the pretext of ‘interpreting the Constitution,’ concepts or values that have no reasonable support from the Constitution itself. . The alleged Constitutional right of two people of the same sex to marry each other is a classic case of ‘legislating from the bench.’ The argument that homosexuals must be permitted to marry each other based on the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law) can only be regarded as logically sound if it is first assumed arbitrarily that the word marriage means “the sexual union of any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex.” If that is what the word marriage means, then of course, it would be a denial of the fourteenth amendment to forbid two men or two women from “marrying” each other. But that argument is entirely circular in nature; it assumes what must first be proved– namely, that marriage IS the sexual union of any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex. That definition of marriage is not found in dictionaries published before the year 2000, much less in the Constitution itself. It is a definition still rejected by millions of Americans, and by the majority of Americans in a number of states. It is a definition without any cultural, linguistic, or legislative support in the entire history of our country and Western civilization, a definition that was in the very recent past rejected by the Republicans and Democrats who signed DOMA under Bill Clinton– including Bill Clinton himself– and a definition that was allegedly rejected by Barack Obama himself until just prior to his reelection in 2012. In 2008, he was quoted as saying that he believed marriage was the union of a man and a woman. The fact is, many states have defined marriage as “the union of a man and a woman,” and in accordance with that definition, there is no law in those states denying any citizen the right to marry. They have, in other words, equal protection under the law to marry– according to the state’s definition of marriage, a definition firmly rooted in our nation’s culture and history. Moreover, the Constitution itself does not define marriage, nor does it give to the federal government the ‘right’ to define marriage. The interpretation of the 14th amendment that is being used to trump state marriage amendments depends on justices first imposing in an arbitrary manner through legislative sleight of hand– since the Constitution gives them no authority to do this– their own “preferred” definition of marriage, in defiance of the definition recognized by the state– then, on that basis of that unilateral redefinition of the word ‘marriage,’ they declare the state law to be unconstitutional. What is going on here is pure logical sophistry involving a rhetorical tactic known as ‘bait and switch.’ First, the justices “bait” the public by waving in front of them a generally recognized principle of justice, that the law should protect all citizens equally and be applied equally. But then they switch the definition of marriage recognized by the state in its laws, which they have no authority to do, and on the basis of that redefinition, they declare state marriage amendments and laws to be in violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The rhetorical sleight of hand going on here may be subtle, but on close inspection, it is patent– a total abuse of judicial power that is grossly immoral, deceitful, and deplorable.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            I’m sorry, my friend, but I have to say something at this point. PLEASE break your thoughts into paragraphs. What you are doing is hurting my eyes LOL! I say that not as a deflection of what you wrote, just a polite request. I couldn’t get past “line 4″ without squinting. Thanks.

          • Martin Rizley

            Advice noted and taken.

          • David

            I find that attitude pretty bizarre as it is only by breaking the law that LGBT activists managed to push things this far. You speak of him paying the price – for an f’ing cake!!!! it’s sick, totally sick

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Your disagreement with the law does not invalidate it.

          • Greg

            Isaiah 59:14-15—Our courts oppose the righteous, and justice is nowhere to be found. Truth stumbles in the streets, and honesty has been outlawed. Yes, truth is gone, and anyone who renounces evil is attacked.——Pretty much sums up where we are and headed, in these days.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            So stopping discrimination is equivalent to “courts oppose the righteous” and “honesty has been outlawed”? And I thought WE were the drama queens.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Umm. We did that all over the nation. Even put it in our constitutions. However you lawless ones used lawless judges to throw out duly enacted laws. Don’t forget the Nazi’s and communist also called everyone whop opposed their tyranny “criminals” also. The only reason you are getting away with this is good people are allowing it. They will figure it out sooner or later though.

          • Demmi Greene

            We have several Civil Rights ‘sojourners’ in our alliance of sisters churches here in Ga. Some are advising several of the ministers to get their ”affairs in order”. They see jail time, ‘bloody streets’ and the ”federal government” wielding the dogs, ‘Billie clubs’, guns set upon/at many AA churches this time over forced acceptance.

          • QuadGMoto

            But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”

            — Acts 5:29

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            So, hows that working for you? Justifying breaking the law with the Bible.

          • QuadGMoto

            “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
            — Jesus, Matthew 10:28

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            I think equating “killing” and “attending an educational seminar” is a bit disingenuous. Seriously, chicken little. You crack me up.

          • QuadGMoto

            Way to “misunderstand” Jesus’ (and my) point by completely disconnecting your response from your question.

            Think of it this way: What is the worst that can be done to any human being by another? What will God do to those who choose to deny Him, even to avoid what men can do?

            Obey God? Or obey men? When there is a conflict, the proper choice is clear.

            Here is the full context of that quote:

            “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

            “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.

            “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

            “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
            — Matthew 10:16–39

            Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”
            — Daniel 3:16–18

            You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
            — James 4:4

          • thisoldspouse

            How long did you break the sodomy laws of Texas, criminal?

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Not once, not that its your business, you creepy guy.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Again. Criminal?

      • Daniel Martinovich

        Criminal?

        • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

          Sorry. “Civil Rights Violators”

    • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

      “so that they can be educated in God’s wisdom on these issues, delivered from their ignorance of biblical truth, and “deprogrammed” from the intensive brainwashing treatment they received at some institution of “higher learning” from liberal “programmers” to whom they surrendered their minds uncritically at a vulnerable moment of their lives.”

      Psychological projection becomes no one, dear.

  • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

    The only cure for bigotry is education. Period. Keep in mind, this baker is a CRIMINAL. That’s not an opinion. He BROKE the law. In this country, there are consequences for breaking the law. I wish this writer would take a cue from Romans 13:1.

    • Jack Brown

      I would disagree on him being a criminal, as I believe the entire matter has been handled in civil courts.

      If I am mistaken about this, let me know. Thanks.

      • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

        You may be correct. If that is the case, if you break a law and a civil court finds you guilty, what are you called?

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Not what you are calling them. You need to understand the difference between criminal and civil law.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Then what is someone who breaks a civil law called?

          • It’s Just Me

            In criminal law, a suspect is arrested. They are taken to criminal court, where they are given a trial. Either a judge or a jury would pronounce a sentence. If found guilty, the defendant is then given a punitive measure – sentences are pronounced, and a punitive measure is taken – jail, probation, adjudication, etc.

            Civil matters are primarily an issue of contract law, and there is an entirely separate court system to deal with it. You DON’T GO TO JAIL over civil matters. Instead of a sentence, a judgment is pronounced. If you want to be technical about it, the person receiving the judgment is a “judgment defendent” or a “judgment creditor.”

            If what is being said is true, that a “civil rights tribunal” was conducted, this sounds more like a hearing, rather than a court case. In order for it to be a court case, it needs to take place in a federal, state, county or city court, and a sentence or judgment must be rendered, which is signed off by a judgment.

            No court case, no sentence or judgment – no legal teeth to any pronouncement against the subject.

            If this is the case, I would say the baker and his mom are on strong legal grounds not to attend the “re-orientation”.

            (I work as a paralegal conducting legal research).

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Thanks for the correction. I’ve had other people say the same. The closest “title” I can come up with that legally fits is “civil rights violator” which doesn’t roll off the tongue like “criminal,” but I want to be accurate.

            And I do this tribunal has the power to revoke his business license if the baker does not comply.

        • Jack Brown

          “Civil Rights Violator”? “Dude with bad business sense”?

          You have options, but calling him a criminal is a bit hyperbolic. No worries, as the writers at BarbWire seem to be rather fond of hyperbole.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            I’ll go with “Civil Rights Violator.” Thanks for the correction.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      This coming from a homothug who thinks people should be forced to submit to the will of sexual perverts.

      • Demmi Greene

        MLK, Joseph, Daniel, Even Christ was jailed ‘under the law’. Christians were/are martyred ‘under the law’ now.

        All of those laws and governments have/will/shall fall into judgment.

      • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

        Your bigoted view does not invalidate the truth of my post.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Dude, don’t play games with me. We both know exactly what you want, and that is forced submission to your sexual desires. Throwing the word “bigot” around doesn’t change it. We have your own words to prove it.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            How is serving me in your business equivalent to “forced submission to my sexual desires?” Wow, and I thought WE were the drama queens.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Wow, you actually think you can ignore your own words and get away with it? Think again, liar.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Not ignoring them. I stand behind them. Nothing I have said contradicts them.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Good. And you can take your attitude and yourself straight to hell.

            You want to forcibly change my mind on homosexuality? You are certainly welcome to come to my home and try. But you better have emergency personnel standing by. It will go rather downhill for you very quickly.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Sounds like I hit a nerve, Matty. Only you can change your opinion. But the law is on MY side. And you better obey it.

          • garybryson

            Nobody and I mean nobody gives a hoot what you think or want. Just another internet tough guy who would wilt like a flower in the Texas heat in person…LOL! Emergency personnel…ROTFLMAO!!!! Bring it matty my boy!!

  • Laurie Higgins

    I empathize with this author Lee Duigon’s struggle against anger. This is an outrage and an occasion for civil disobedience. Neither the baker, nor his employees, nor his mother should attend.
    Alternatively, as Mr. Rizley suggested, they should attend and “speak truth to power.”

    Martin Luther King Jr. wrote that “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” Compulsory re-education in an effort to forcibly inculcate free citizens with non-factual opinions about the nature and morality of homoerotic activity, relationships, and celebrations should offend all freedom-loving Americans. Remember, the baker did not refuse to serve homosexuals. He was and is more than happy to sell baked goods to any and every one. He refused to use his time, labor, and creative gifts in the service of a ceremony that the God he serves abhors.
    Despite “OnlyMyHumbleOpinion’s” silly assertion, propositions regarding what acts constitute moral acts do not constitute “bigotry.” And the left never applies that principle consistently. They never claim that the propositions about which acts are moral acts constitute either bigotry or hatred of those who engage in them.
    There’s foolish consistency, which is the hobgoblin of little minds, and then there’s foolish inconsistency, which is the hobgoblin of little “progressive” minds.

    • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

      Did this man commit a crime?
      Was he found guilty?
      Was he sentenced?
      Was the law followed during this process?
      I can’t believe you are using God to justify criminal activity. Seriously.

      • Laurie Higgins

        I was quoting Martin Luther King Jr. who “used God” to justify breaking immoral, indefensible laws.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          Sodomites and their fellow progressives believe if there is a law then it must be moral.

          What is bizarre is the fact that the absurdity of a “same sex marriage” isn’t even legal in Colorado

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            But it will be soon, darling. My guess: 2 years at the most. And the case is not absurd. This man broke the law. He is a criminal. Do you disagree?
            P.S. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. Check Ezekiel 16:49.

          • QuadGMoto

            just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
            — Jude 1:7

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            But it doesn’t say that was the “sin” of Sodom, does it. Ezekiel makes it more plain. Do you disagree?

          • QuadGMoto

            Genesis makes it clear. Jude confirms it as sinful. Ezekial just lists additional things they were guilty of.

            But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.
            — Genesis 19:4–9

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            The only sin I see is threatened gang rape and Lot’s sin of offering his daughters for rape. And even that requires me to infer “sin”, because to be honest, that word is nowhere in that scripture.

          • QuadGMoto

            A) Sodom and Gomorrah were punished. Are you suggesting that God’s punishment and sin are disconnected?

            B) They were after homosexual sex, to the point where they rejected the women.

            C) Compare:

            just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

            — Jude 7

            For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
            — Romans 1:26–27

            D) God explicitly stated that he was punishing the Canaanites for several sins, including homosexual behavior. If God explicitly punished non-Israelites for homosexuality, there is no reason to consider it to not be immoral behavior when the Sodomites explicitly engaged in it and were punished.

            You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

            “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean,
            — Leviticus 18:22,24

        • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

          What? Can’t answer my questions? I was just asking:

          Did this man commit a crime?
          Was he found guilty?
          Was he sentenced?
          Was the law followed during this process?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Is it reasonable to force someone to abandon their religious beliefs? How in the world do you justify it?

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            I don’t justify it. I don’t have to. The courts have spoken. This is not a subjective issue. It is black and white and the system worked. There will be one less bigot baker out there.

          • TruthDetector

            Here, let me answer your questions. You’re making yourself look silly.

            1) Did the man commit a crime?

            Absolutely not, nor was he accused of violating any of the Colorado Revised Statutes. In fact, he didn’t even violate any civil law. The Colorado “Human Rights” commission is an arbitrary star chamber similar to the Federal EEOC (Part of the executive branch).

            2) Was he found guilty?

            No. There was no trial. This was a hearing by an executive body (an “investigation”) into whether the baker allegedly violated the “gay” agitators “civil rights.”

            3) Was he sentenced?

            No. There is no “sentencing” in this kind of “human rights” tribunal. The seven members of the commission asserted that their “investigation” determined he violated the homosexual activists’ “civil rights.” A totally bunk idea since even the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals has determined that homosexuality is “fluid and mutable” and based on feelings, attractions and a subjective self-definition, not on immutable characteristics like skin color, which are necessarily to define a “suspect minority class” for purposes of special civil rights protection.

            4) Was the law followed during the process?

            Absolutely not. In fact, this “civil rights” tribunal is counter-Constitutional. These seven liberal activists on the commission overtly violated the Baker’s constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment civil rights – his free exercise of religion. The First Amendment trumps any and all laws (or in this case “human rights” regulations) that presume to force people to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. The case law and the clear language of the U.S. Constitution are clear in that regard.

            This “civil rights” hearing and the commission’s toothless requirement that the baker attend this Orwellian re-education camp is a farce, an overt constitutional violation.

            I hope he attends the “sensitivity training” and co-opts the whole session to educate the activist “trainer” and everyone in attendance about the U.S. Constitution and, more importantly, what the clear, irrefutable Word of God says about the homosexual sin lifestyle. All things work together for good for those who love the Lord and this baker has a great chance to take what Satan intends for evil and throw it back in Satan’s face – as well as in the face of the homofascist left and this “civil rights” star chamber.

            I’m still praying that you’ll find freedom from your deception before you are “given over to a depraved mind” like, as Paul warns, eventually happens to the unrepentant homosexual.

            Your eternity depends on it.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            I appreciate your comprehensive answer. Another person already corrected me on some of my nomenclature. Technically, he is not a “criminal” since he broke a civil law. So, to be more accurate, I corrected my post and will now call him a civil rights violator.

            But I have to ask, if it is so cut and dried as you have described, how come not ONE lawyer is fighting it? Not even the baker?

            Methinks, you may not be as legally sound on this issue as you think.

        • Demmi Greene

          ‘Mart]in was jailed for holding to the concept of the nation adhering to a ”higher moral authority” that originated from a code of God’s justice, righteousness and judgement.

          Colorado “Civil Rights” Division does not have that same moral authority MLK summoned, only one based on moral relativity for an aberrant law.

        • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

          These laws are not immoral and indefensible… your mystically-inspired bigotry certainly is.

        • ErickMN

          How dare you defile the memory of Dr. King with your hateful garbage. He wouldn’t be deeply insulted. You should be ashamed of your hateful self.

          • Demmi Greene

            What are you saying??

            She is quoting Dr. King verbatim.

          • ErickMN

            Dr. King would find Laurie Higgens to be vile, just like any other decent, rational human being.

          • Demmi Greene

            If so, that would put Dr. King in direct contradiction to the Scriptures he preached; and to the ”Reverend” you conspicuously left out in front of his name.

  • Jack Brown

    I’ve noticed that 99.99% of editorials (and I’m being extremely generous by referring to this word salad as an editorial) on this case fail to bring up the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically how it legally defines “public accommodations”.

    Furthermore, on of the conservative’s favorite concepts, State’s Rights, come into play, as in 2008, the state of Colorado decided to extend existing federal Civil Rights protections so as to include sexual orientation and identity.

    While writers can stir up the masses with catchphrases about homofascism and gay agendas and whatnot, the core issue is: Should the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 be repealed or at least amended to allow public accommodations to discriminate?

    If religious exemptions are allowed for bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, should religious exemptions be allowed to butchers who refuse to ground up some beef for an interracial couple? (Yes, there are still churches in the United States that oppose interracial marriage. I’m looking at you, Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

    Yeah, I get that you guys don’t want to do business with homosexuals. You’ve made that plain, time and time again. What you haven’t made plain is how strong do you want any religious exemptions to be. Are you only okay with discrimination against certain groups, or should the exemptions apply to everyone?

    Yeah, I realize it’s asking too much for the folks at Barbwire to approach any subject with a modicum of reasonableness, but I thought I’d give it a try.

    • Lupe

      This has LITTLE or nothing to do with a Christian not wanting to bake a cake. What is underlying here is simple FREEDOM. If anyone does not want to server another FOR WHATEVER reason that is (or should be) their right. Too often, as of late, the hate mongers (LGBT) have forced others to do their bidding. ALL Americans have had the same rights under the Constitution since it’s inception (barring slavery and we corrected that). Bigotry has been with us since the creation and will continue until the world is no longer. Face it. I have been refused service for being brown and; Guess what? Not a bone was broken, no a scar was left. No pain. No shame. Nothing. I simply went to another location that offered the same services and purchased what I wanted. There are millions of us “colored” folk that TRULY understand the wonderful freedom we have. I doubt you have seen the “Tin City” of Hong Kong, been on the streets of Mumbai (Bombay) with the squalor their or many of the other places of misery. I would venture that all you have seen or experienced is the freedom you know here in the U.S.A. I spent 27 years of my life defending this country and it’s Constitution because I know it is the BEST system in the world. It hurts my heart and brings near tears when I see what the “progressives” are doing to her. No hate for ANYONE here, just a saddness that makes one weary. You wanted reasonable…

      • ErickMN

        YOU may accept being treated like a second class citizen, but, I assure you, the vast majority of the rest of us are not. You are an embarrassment to your race. Shame on you.

        • Demmi Greene

          ”You are an embarrassment to your race???.”

          ???? You are insulting.

          • ErickMN

            “I have been refused service for being brown and:…I simply went to another location”. No person with any sort of self respect would dream of accepting that. Lupe has made a mockery of the struggles his/her kind endured during the civil rights movement, and he/she should be ashamed of himself/herself.

          • Demmi Greene

            ”Lupe has made a mockery of the struggles his/her kind endured during the civil rights movement, and he/she should be ashamed of himself/herself.”

            God was w/ the civil rights movement, . . not w/ this.

            .”I simply went to another location”. No person with any sort of self respect would dream of accepting that.”

            We did it all the time.

          • ErickMN

            You imaginary sky daddy is irrelevant to any civil rights struggle.

            And go ahead and accept your second class citizen status. But don’t expect others to do that.

          • Demmi Greene

            That makes it MLK’s ”sky daddy”,…and the civil rights movement’s very own ”sky daddy”, too.

          • ErickMN

            Yes. An imaginary deity is completely optional to the movement.

          • Demmi Greene

            ”How dare you defile the memory of Dr. King with your hateful garbage.

            He would be deeply insulted.

            you should be ashamed of your hateful self.”

            ‘hypocrite’.

          • Jack Brown

            While in hindsight it is easy for religionists to jump on the Civil Rights bandwagon, history tells a different story.

            I’d recommend Marxist Minstrels by evangelist David Noebel to see what conservative Christians of the time thought of the Civil Rights Movement (SPOILER ALERT: they thought it was a commie plot, not something approved of by God).

            If that’s not enough, you know those little Jesus comic books, aka Chick Tracts? At least one of them, “The Beast”, has been revised in the last 20 years to remove references to the Civil Rights movement being a satanic plot.

            I guess 20 years from now, your religious descendants will be claiming they were at the vanguard of fighting for LGBT rights.

            While I disagree with ErickMN’s “disgrace to your race” comment, as I believe that an individual’s actions can not reflect on an entire race, he is absolutely right that one should not expect others to waive their rights as a citizen just because they do it. In fact, it completely dilutes any point they might have regarding private business owners standing up for their rights — real or imagined.

            I mean, the baker should stand up for his right to discriminate, but LGBT people should just waive their rights? What kind of argument is that?

          • Demmi Greene

            ”While in hindsight it is easy for ”religionists” to jump on the Civil Rights bandwagon”

            ???? The CRM was born and raised in the black Church; . . homosexuals jare umping on the Civil Rights bandwagon”.

            ”conservative Christians?…”The Beast”, ..satanic plot….a commie plot????

            This CRM was God answering our prayers.

            ” . .I guess 20 years from now, your religious descendants will be claiming they were at the vanguard of fighting for LGBT rights.”

            No,…we will not betray the faith ].

            ”And Jesus said to him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

          • Jack Brown

            All you have to do is crack open a history book and see what I am saying can be verified.

            If you have questions, ask them. Simply posting a bunch of random question marks makes you come off as obtuse, You can do better, I’m sure.

          • Demmi Greene

            I’ve lived thru ”jim crow” and segregation, sat in balconies at movies, etc.,,,so am I am well aware of the CRM’s many turns and phases. Whatever points you are making regarding the ‘disavowing’ of the movement by anyone observing it from an adversarial stance, are meaningless to us. Do you not understand this in context of/to a ”1st person narrative” for us? Neither does the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest and his ‘band of merry men’,.. then or now,..hold any true relevance. This was ”God and the Israelites” 2.0 for us. We have history with him and its sacred to us.

            Calling me stupid when the problem is your lack of perspective and inability to relate is typical, and unappreciated.

          • Jack Brown

            Please don’t attribute to me things I didn’t say. I have not done it to you, and I expect the same. I said the use of random question marks makes you come off as obtuse; that is not calling you stupid.

            I’m wondering if you think I am some young college whippersnapper who has only read about the Civil Rights Movement in textbooks. That is far from the case. I grew up in South Texas in the early sixties, so if you are trying to tell me that the Civil Rights Movement is Christian in origins, you are selling me a bill of goods. Being the only non-Christian family in a small South Texas town, my brothers and I experienced first hand what some Christians thought of Civil Rights.

            The Civil Rights Movement has its origins in GIs who went to college after WWII on the GI Bill. There, they learned that they were actually entitled to the same rights they were defending during the war.

            My grandmother won the Pulitzer Prize in 1955 exposing political corruption among Democrats (lest you think she was some lefty journalist… she was just a mom trying to put bread on the table for her family) in South Texas. She was there in the trenches, having guns pulled on her because some wealthy ranchers thought they could tell Hispanics who to vote for.

            tl;dr version: Don’t presume that I learned about the Civl Rights Movement from some documentary on The History Channel.

            I honestly can’t believe that you are denying that there was any sort of Christian opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. While I can readily concede that much of the opposition came from fringe religious figures such as David Noebel and Jack Chick, I am also keenly aware that people like Matt Barber and Bryan Fischer represent the same extreme fringe today that was occupied by Noebel & Chick 50 years ago. In fact, both of them are still around these days, and I’m pretty sure they would happily agree with the nonsense that Fischer, Barber, Duigon, et al routinely publish.

          • Demmi Greene

            ”I’m wondering if you think I am some young college whippersnapper who has only read about the Civil Rights Movement in textbooks.”

            I don’t care who you are at this point, seeing as how your attempt to disavow the role of the AA church’s and God in the CRM. 4 little black girls in Sunday School, at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in 1963, are dead because of that role. So who is worse,…the KKK, David Noebel, Jack Chick, Matt Barber,..Bryan Fischer or a revisionist like you???

            ”I honestly can’t believe that you are denying that there was any sort of Christian opposition to the Civil Rights Movement.”

            So what??? What group or entity in the world, … secular or religious, is perfectly monolithic?? If God is for us, who can be against us? He was for us,… and we will never deny God, nor his hand in it. The GLBT movement can never lay hold to that claim, its sacred to us; so there can be no true kinship nor affinity. The GLBT movement is soon going to war w/ some AA churches over this forced acceptance. Many of us will go to jail and die again; but we will not betray the faith. Amos 3:3 reads, ”Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

            You are disingenuous here, at best. I’ve read and seen enough from you.

          • Jack Brown

            You’re moving goalposts now. I never claimed that — in fact, I did just the opposite by specifying that it was a fringe element of conservative Christians — it was some monolithic, singular Christian opposition to the Civil Rights Movement.

            I can understand completely why you have read and seen enough from me, as you have thus far been completely incapable of addressing my points without grossly misrepresenting them.

            Since others may be reading this, I’ll go ahead and point them to Lee Duigon — the author of the above article — and his association with the Chalcedon Foundation, an organization that advocates “Kinism”, some allegedly Biblical form of segregation. Chalcedon was founded by Rousas Rushdoony, a man who opposed interracial marriage and often defended southern slavery. So what I’m talking about isn’t exactly something from the distant past.

            No worries, Demmi Greene; I don’t expect you to investigate any of this, as Confirmation Bias seems to have clouded your judgment. However, anyone else is free to verify what I am saying.

          • Demmi Greene

            You’re raised as a Southern boy, yet you neither possess nor honor the civilities of basic manners? I clearly stated,… ”I’ve read and seen enough from you” and you keep clamoring? Why,…a lack of home training?

            ” . . . I can understand completely why you have read and seen enough from as . . . ”you have thus far been completely incapable of addressing my without grossly misrepresenting them.”

            Well no, dear,….. it’s because Your credibility with me is completely shot.

          • Steven Schwartz

            God was w/ the civil rights movement, . . not w/ this.

            I must have missed the memo where that was laid down as truth.

          • Demmi Greene

            ”I must have missed the memo where that was laid down as truth.”

            Really??? Well then,….I must have ‘missed the memo’ where ”you missing that” is somehow relevant or problematic.

            (Eye roll).

          • Steven Schwartz

            Let me be less flippant, then.

            Why should anyone believe your claim that God was with one movement or another?

          • Demmi Greene

            Let me be more concise,…

            Why should I care if you believe my claim, . . because I don’t, actually.

          • Lupe

            Erick, Erick, Erick. I am sad for you. You will never get it. You have been stuck in your “progressive” bubble for so long that you can’t recognize true freedom. If you had read my post (or did someone read it to you and leave out the good parts?) you would have understood that arguing with one bigot is a waste of time. I am free to argue or not argue with whom I wish. I doubt, seriously, you will understand. However, no harm, no foul. I still love you as my neighbor and would give you assistance if you required it. Take care. May God bless you and yours.

          • ErickMN

            You claim the freedom to be treated like a doormat. How sad and pathetic for you.

        • QuadGMoto

          You are an embarrassment to your race

          There’s nothing quite like watching a leftist out themselves as a clear racist.

      • Jack Brown

        And this exactly what to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how it defines “public accommodations”? Seriously, if you have something of substance to add, by all means do so. I wanted reasonable, and you gave me a bunch of emotional appeals. Try again, please (with paragraph breaks, hopefully).

        ErikMN is absolutely, 100% correct. It’s entirely your prerogative if you want to waive your rights as a citizen, but it is unreasonable to expect other citizens to do the same.

        Again, the issue at hand is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how public accommodations are defined. While I — in all sincerity — I respect your service as a veteran — it is not really pertinent to the discussion. I would much rather hear how the Civil Rights Act should be repealed/amended, et cetera.

        Thanks.

  • ErickMN

    I hope this fool Duigon whines and moans about gay people every single day for the rest of his hateful life. He richly deserves his self-imposed misery.

  • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

    The number one argument I run into amongst the legally ignorant about this subject is the concept of “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This is a common business myth that needs to be put to bed. No public business has the right to refuse service to ANYONE. Yes, there can be customer rules of behavior that come into play, but if your business is public and if it falls under a public accommodations law where sexual orientation is a protected class, you DO NOT have the right to refuse service for that reason. Period.

    What’s truly interesting is that some legal experts are suggesting that when the SCOTUS repealed that portion of DOMA and stated that the Federal government could not discriminate based on sexual orientation, this action, in effect, made sexual orientation a FEDERALLY protected group. We should see some cases soon that test this out.

    This baker was immoral and deserved the consequences of violating this couples’ civil rights. And if he doesn’t learn his lesson, he should have his business license revoked.

    • thisoldspouse

      So, you’re saying we’re all slaves?

      • Rob T

        If you think that not being allowed to turn away black customers because you hate black people makes you a slave, then by your definition you are a slave.

        • thisoldspouse

          Yes, that is slavery. What else would you call it? Reparations?

      • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

        No, citizens who obey the law.

    • thisoldspouse

      You are either woefully ignorant, or connivingly deceptive, over what Windor even decided. It DID NOT elevate sexual perversion to a “civil right.” All it did was recognize states’ rights to define marriage for themselves, and have citizens of these particular states recognized by the federal government – that is all.

      Yes, that’s right. Windsor BOLSTERED THE RIGHTS OF STATES TO DEFINE MARRIAGE. That is why these rogue judges are completely devoid of reason, especially when they defer to the DOMA case for their “rationale.”

      • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

        And yet here we are. Your ranting about it does not change it. Accept reality my friend or retreat to your bunker.

  • Rev Michael

    Excellent article – righteous anger and a big amen to your idea’s. Are all appeals lost on this case and who is the judge who made this decision – gay perhaps?

    • Jack Brown

      …and who is the judge who made this decision – gay perhaps?

      Yeah, I’m sure that’s it. And all the Supreme Court justices who ruled in Loving v. Virginia were in interracial marriages, and the justices who ruled in Lawrence v. Texas were gay, and the justices who ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette were Jehovah’s Witnesses. There simply can’t be any other explanation, can there?

      • thisoldspouse

        Same false equivalence of inborn, indelible, CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE characteristics with a sexual fetish that you guys always spout.

        • Jack Brown

          I’m not the one originally making the accusation that the judge is gay. That would be the guy with whom you are agreeing. Why don’t you take it up with him? Or are you willing to overlook fallacious reasoning, as long as it comes from your team? I am sure such unethical partisanship is beneath you, so I hope you don’t prove me wrong.

          I at least had the decency to get someone on this board to stop referring to the baker as a “criminal”, even though I am in agreement with much of what he says.

          However, if you simply lack the eloquence to state your case without gross generalizations, let me know, so that I can just mentally filter out your posts, as I’m not going to wast my time responding to a troll.

          And who are these “you guys” that you are on about? Generalize much? Do you care to tell me things you think you know about me that I don’t?

        • Steven Schwartz

          the justices who ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette were Jehovah’s Witnesses.

          I had not realized you could spot Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor that it was inborn. Makes their proselytizing seem rather silly, though. ;)

    • thisoldspouse

      It sounds like one lower court made the ruling and the snivel reich council confirmed the case. I’ve heard that the baker is considering appealing; don’t know if this is at the state level or federal. I can almost understand his indecision – appealing infers that you will agree with whatever finding the appellate court system comes up with. Simply acting as a true man and refusing to bow to fascism might be the more courageous course.

  • ConservativeSurge

    The next time some bundle of sticks asks for proof that his people seek to eliminate freedom of worship, send him to this article.

  • Pingback: What to do when forced to perform ‘gay weddings’ | ALLUMBRADOS

  • Pingback: What To Do When Forced To Perform ‘Gay Weddings’ | Our Tyrannical Government

  • Pingback: What To Do When Forced To Perform ‘Gay Weddings’

  • Pingback: What to Do When Forced to Perform ‘Gay Weddings’ | Last Days News4Christians

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!