Homosexual Re-Education Camps Set to Begin

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

In a stunning blow to religious freedom, Colorado baker Jack Phillips has been sentenced to be “reeducated” along with his staff by a pro-homosexual court.

Phillips’ crime: he refused to make a cake celebrating counterfeit marriage.

In a politically correct culture, government decides whose beliefs have preference. In a politically correct culture hostile to freedom, government decides who can force some people to do what other people tell them to do, regardless of whether those actions violate the conscience and religious freedom of the person being forced.

What’s next?  According to the “logic” of the Left, we can expect to see:

  • People forcing a Jewish baker to make a cake with the message “Exterminate the Jews”
  • People forcing a Muslim restaurant owner to serve pork
  • People forcing a homosexual business owner to make a cake stating “Marriage is between a man and a woman only”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that last one to be upheld.  Tolerance only goes one way in a Leftist country, after all. In fact, don’t hold your breath waiting for any of these to be upheld (except maybe the first one; after all, the Left has a particular loathing for Jews, so that first one might fly).

America used to be a free country, where Americans had the liberty to create a business and run it as they saw fit.  America used to be a country that not only protected religious liberty, but valued morality.

That America is on the verge of no longer existing. The First Amendment is obsolete. Welcome to the New America of the Left.

(Video report via CBN News)

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

  • Opposition Research

    And all along I thought that Exodus International, “ex-gay therapy” and “gay conversion therapy” were the re-education camps.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Reparative therapy for homosexuals who want to be free of their aberrant desires is voluntary. What the government seeks to impose on Phillips and his employees is forced.

      Freedom is such an alien concept to liberals.

      • Opposition Research

        Thanks for replying. Honestly. One good snark deserves another, so it’s only fair.

        Such reparative therapy isn’t voluntary for minors whose parents want to impose it on them. Moreover, I don’t doubt for a second that your movement would start mandating it for adults, the minute that you obtained real power.

        Believe it or not, I disagree with the attempts by some states to ban reparative therapy. I do believe in freedom of choice. That’s why people like me are hated so much.

        I’ll make you a deal. You respect our rights of conscience, by advocating that government recognize the same-sex marriages performed by churches or religious groups that affirm them the same as government now recognizes as conventional man-woman marriages, and I’ll stand down about this wedding cake stuff.

        Deal?

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          How is it that I knew, even as I wrote what I wrote, that some liberal would come along and pooh-pooh reparative therapy on the basis of children who are sometimes sent to it? Because I know liberals so well, that’s how.

          Maybe this, like liberty, is also a foreign concept to you, but the simple fact is that parents are in charge of their children’s behavior and welfare. Indeed, parents are responsible for both. Just as there is nothing heinous or wrong in a parent who forces their child to clean their room, do extra chores, go to the doctor, attend a summer camp or attend a military school, there is nothing whatsoever wrong about a parent sending their child to reparative therapy to help them overcome sexual urges that are damaging to their physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health. For a parent to fail to do everything they can to help their child overcome a physical or mental problem is dereliction on the part of a parent. It is not a loving act to allow someone you care about–especially someone for whom you are responsible–to continue down a dangerous path without trying to intervene

          Mandating reparative therapy for adults, so long as they have not done something criminal (like the pedophile who likes to molest children), would be counter to freedom and would not work. An adult is responsible for their own behavior, and must live with the consequences of that behavior. If our society was a responsible one, we would encourage homosexuals to seek reparative therapy. After all, with the vastly elevated rates of AIDS, HPV, syphilis, other STDs, anal cancer, hepatitis, substance abuse, anxiety, depression, suicide, domestic violence and the like, society would be doing them a favor by encouraging them to be free of these aberrant impulses (just as we do people a favor by encouraging them to avoid or get free of drug use).

          I’ll make you a deal. You respect the God-given and Constitutionally-protected religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which means leaving Americans free to exercise their religious conscience), and respect our republican form of government (which means the legislative branch makes the law, the executive carries it out, and the judicial branch restrains itself from judicial activism and tyranny), and I’ll not further expose your inclination to keep people in bondage to their self-destructive impulses.

          Deal?

          • Opposition Research

            Please re-read my last paragraph with your own last paragraph in mind:

            “I’ll make you a deal. You respect the God-given and Constitutionally-protected religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which means leaving Americans free to exercise their religious conscience),”

            You respect the Unitarians’ freedom of conscience by treating their same-sex marriages equally under the law as the Constitution requires, and I’ll reciprocate.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Unitarians or any other pro-homosexual group can call whatever non-marital union “marriage” if they like, but good people (and the state which serves those good people) is under no obligation to indulge or affirm their delusion.

            Even judicial tyranny in what used to be a republic cannot change the reality recognized by every culture throughout history: It takes a man and a woman to form a marriage.

          • Opposition Research

            I got it now, thanks.

            Your “religious freedom” is somehow entitled to defy duly enacted laws like non-discrimination laws, yet your duly enacted laws, somehow, are entitled to walk all over our religious freedom.

            Silly of me not to surrender to that before. My apologies.

          • Dawn1257

            That’s EXACTLY the way he sees it.

          • Opposition Research

            Hey, I give him credit for engaging us, however sneeringly.

          • helligusvart

            That’s because that’s the way it is. Religion, and in particular the Christian religion is sacrosanct. That is how our founders saw it. When religion (and especially Christianity, the religion our nation was founded upon) collides with any other interests, religion always wins out, unless that will result in someone’s physical death or harm. Freedom of Religion is second only to the freedom to live free of physical harm. So-called “gay rights” are almost at the bottom of the totem pole.

          • trustingonlyinhim

            You think Christians are bad. haha . Just wait till the # muzzies (you know like the 30k plus our govt is importing) really start growing.You won’t be able to say a word about it. Do not deceive yourselves, they will have no qualms about slaughtering gays (or anyone else for that matter) en mass. As far as churches marrying gays, well, that won’t be an issue either, because those will be burnt to the ground with the Christians inside ( that should make you happy ( at least at first), & then they WILL set their sites on ALL gays.
            So hey, be proud, be loud, keep coming out, scream, swish & lisp about how oppressed you are, & how Christians must be made to abandon our God, our faith, our Bible & not only condone but fully support what our same faith, God & Bible tells us is sinful & wrong. The difference is we can live peaceably without wanting to kill you, witness to you & all, yes, but in the end the choice will still be yours to make.

          • helligusvart

            Why did you write this to me? I’m on your side. Did you intend to respond to someone else?

          • trustingonlyinhim

            My mistake. I meant it for Opposition Research. Been a long day. Apparently I hit reply under the wrong name.

          • helligusvart

            No prob.

          • Jakob

            So true!!! Good comment!

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Not interested in my deal? Apparently you like to be able to pass counterfeit items you favor, but don’t like it when people try to pass counterfeit items to you. That’s the typical liberal double-standard.

            And perhaps you missed it, but the U.S. Constitution–the highest law of our nation–guarantees our God-given right to religious freedom. Any law that purports to supersede the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate and unconstitutional.

            Let’s be clear: there is no “religious freedom” to sodomize. You will not find a religious imperative (or even allowance) to sodomize in any sacred text. You also will not find any religious imperative or allowance to call sodomy “marriage” in any sacred text. Therefore, there can be no “religious freedom” to counterfeit marriage.

            This stuff really isn’t hard (until you try to justify the unjustifiable, that is).

          • Opposition Research

            It looks as if you’re taking it upon yourself to be the arbiter of what religious beliefs, rights, and concepts are valid and which ones are not.

            I kinda knew that was coming, but that was too easy.

            You don’t get to decide who’s beliefs are valid and which ones aren’t. Nobody made you king of America by some inherited divine right.

            As I said, we are the true champions of freedom. That’s why we’re hated so intensely.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Either there is or there is not a “religious freedom” to sodomize, or a “religious freedom” to call sodomy “marriage.” How would one determine whether there is a religious imperative that an adherent to a particular religion might be expected, by the dictates of conscience, to follow? By checking the sacred text of that religion. Since no sacred text of any religion calls for or considers sodomy to be a moral imperative, there can be no dictate of conscience and therefore no “religious freedom” based on such a nonexistent imperative.

            It’s simple reality, and liberals tend to loathe reality because it doesn’t justify the self-centered narcissism they imagine as a need for themselves.

            If you can point to a sacred text of a religion calling for sodomy or affirming it as a moral imperative, you might have a leg to stand on. In the absence thereof, you appear to just be another liberal who insists on behaving immorally and insists that others applaud you in the immorality.

            Sorry, the rest of us are not obligated to affirm you or immoral behavior, not by the Laws of Nature or Nature’s God, nor by the U.S. Constitution.

          • Rob T

            The sacred text of my religion does call for “sodomy” (though it doesn’t call it that because “sodomy” is from a different religious and refers either to arrogant, inhospitable pride or gang rape, both of which my sacred text condemns).

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Really? Wow, I gotta see this! What is your religion, and what is the name of your religion’s sacred text? Enlighten me!

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I’m still waiting…

          • Rob T

            I just wrote it down, inspired by the great Creator Itself!

            And I have exactly as much proof as you do.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Again, I know liberals so well! I knew that if you had the guts (or the arrogance) to respond at all, that it would be with something like that–almost to the word, I was correct.

            Sorry, while you may be childish enough to elevate your own opinions to a transcendent moral value, thankfully our leaders have not yet sunk so low as to be that foolish. Though their moral failures are legion, their standard for recognizing something as a valid religion entitled to protection and respect is still a little higher than accepting “Because I said so” from a narcissist.

          • Rob T

            As I said, I have exactly as much proof as you do, so you’re really just damning your own position.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            You have none whatsoever. You didn’t create anything, therefore you have no right to determine morality for anything.

            God created the universe and everything in it (and if can’t see the immense proof of that all around you and that is available by employing a little reason, then nothing I have time to tell you here is going to help), which entitles him to establish a moral code for it.

            He has done so, and it is articulated in the Bible–a document with thousands of years of unbroken scientific and historical accuracy which authenticate its claims.

            You, on the other hand, have been wrong about pretty much everything you’ve said here today, and though you wouldn’t acknowledge any of that here, I know that you have to realize that you have been wrong about a lot of things over the course of your life.

            So yeah, there’s a whole lot backing up the validity of Christianity as a religion, as well as God’s truth-claims made in the Bible. You? Zip.

          • Rob T

            We’ve both been wrong about many things in our lives. Just as you may be wrong about the Bible being the word of God.And you have no more proof of that than I do of my own invented religion.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Given the fact that it’s never been proven wrong about a single historical or scientific fact despite thousands of years of attempts by skeptics, I’d say the odds of me being wrong about the veracity of its truth claims are pretty small. Which is why our nation’s founders were confident enough to build the world’s greatest republic on it as the foundation.

          • Rob T

            That’s funny. Funny and false.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Ah, no. It’s completely true. I’ve read a LOT of claims that the Bible is wrong about this or that, and every one of them has been debunked. In fact, the Bible has several times proven secularists wrong about something they thought to be true, only to eventually to be proven by the Bible and archaeology to be wrong. A reasonable person would take heed.

          • Rob T

            You have to realize that even if you decide to accept the Bible and one of the 41,000 Christian denominations as truth, this is still your decision, dependent on your judgement, and you are elevating your own opinions to the level of transcendent moral value.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I don’t elevate my opinion to the level of transcendent moral value. There are lot of things I have opinions on that may or may not be true (is it really better to have a minivan or a truck?), but I don’t elevate my opinions to the level of a transcendent moral value.

            I do, however, accept what my Creator, God, has clearly said is right and what he has clearly said is wrong, as transcendent moral values. While many denominations may disagree with foundation on the exact meaning and significance of baptism, whether one can lose their salvation, and the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, God is very clear on many certain moral values–not the least of which is the definition of marriage, and that homosexual behavior is morally abhorrent to him.

          • Rob T

            You’re missing the point. You talk about what your Creator, God, has clearly said, but it’s your opinion, your judgement, the product of your fallible human mind, that God said these things, so yes, you are elevating your opinion to the level of transcendent moral value..

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            No, you’re missing the point. It isn’t my opinion or my judgment. If God clearly said “Do this” or “Do not do that,” then it’s not a matter of my opinion, judgment or interpretation. There are some things God didn’t clearly say, and about those, I can only make a reasoned judgement. But there are also many things God clearly said are right and wrong, and those are clearly transcendent moral values.

          • Rob T

            It’s your judgement that leads you to conclude the Bible is true and that it reflects God’s words. If you did not use your judgement to come to this conclusion, then what did you use?

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            My judgement allows me to look at the truth claims of the Bible, compare them to what is observable and verifiable in the world around me, and see that they line up. Only a fool would continue to disbelieve something so important after such compelling evidence.

          • Mrs.Mickle

            What they fail to realize Bob is the bible has one interpertation of God’s word and many ways to apply it to your life.. The only way you can interpet what the bible says about homosexuality is that it is wrong all versuses make that clear. One of the many ways to apply that your life is to realize it is wrong. The second way to apply that your life is to repent of that wrong. And the third way is to turn away from that sin and let Christ make you anew. Interestingly enough as a medical student I have to say that anus is not a sex organ and is not to be used as such one of many biological reasons we know homosexuality and its behaviors is illogical and a fallacy. No matter what laws are passed we will never be able to change objective facts like that…

          • Opposition Research

            But see what you’re doing again.

            You’re taking it upon yourself to decide what form a religious faith must take, the means by which it must derive its doctrine, and even what hermeneutical approach it must use, to be considered “valid.” Even the Vatican doesn’t operate strictly in that manner.

            How a faith derives its principles is not for you, or the government, or for the courts to do. It’s for the conscience of members of that particular sect to do. Is freedom of conscience another one of those things that you will reserve only for yourself and those whom you agree with?

            But since you’re looking for written examples, tradition gets put into written form all the time by faiths who solemnize same-sex marriages. Have you noticed that books on Wiccan traditions now rival the shelf space dedicated to Christian books in stores like Barnes & Noble? There it is, their sacred rites and principles, in written form.

            I could point out that many of the churches that were strongest when our nation was founded, the Congregationalists (now United Church of Christ), the Episcopalians (I’m aware of the recent schism), and the Unitarians now either recognize same-sex marriage or are on the verge of doing do.

            If I were to make the fallacious claim that I see so often on the right, that they inherited some privileged status simply by “being there” at the time, I would say that alone is sufficient.

            But, I won’t do that, since I don’t need to claim special privilege. I’ll leave that for, you know, other folks.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            FYI, the US Constitution does not recognize any rights as God-given. In fact, it does not even recognize the existence of God. Religion is only mentioned in the context of religious freedom and in the requirement that there be no religious test for holding office.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            The Declaration of Independence–without which there would be no United States and thus no U.S. Constitution–is our founding document, listed as the first of our nation’s organic laws in the United States Code, declares unequivocally what the same founders who wrote the Constitution knew: ” that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

            Incidentally, it also recognizes the existence and Lordship of Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian religion, when it gives the date of its creation (” in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”), as well as its recognition of the Christian holy day of worship in Article I Section 7.

            That (like so many things) is just reality. You don’t have to like it, but you don’t get to ignore it or change it.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            Thanks for pointing out that the Constitution includes the phrase “Sundays excepted” in its description of the amount of time permitted for the presidential consideration of a bill. However, it does not say anything about why Sundays are to be excepted. This is not an accident. The founders were very careful in writing the Constitution to avoid narrow definitions where they could be avoided. That is why there is no mention of Christianity anywhere in it. Your reference to the way people of that time stated the year is emphatically not evidence that the constitution meant to enshrine Christianity as the National Religion. It is merely how the date was stated in those days.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Why must liberals always be so obtuse? It makes educating one so tedious.

            Why would Sundays be excepted? And no, it’s no accident that Sundays were excepted, because almost all government officials would be in church and honoring Sunday, not working on Sunday.

            And no, my reference to the dating of the Constitution was NOT evidence “that the constitution meant to enshrine Christianity as the National Religion”…because no one then or today is seeking that. It was for the reason I stated: “it also recognizes the existence and Lordship of Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian religion.” And why did people “in those days” date things that way? Because they “sought to recognize the existence and Lordship of Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian religion.”

            Again, this stuff isn’t rocket science. It only becomes “hard to understand” when people want to avoid a reality they find unpleasant to their self-centered pursuits.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            My point is that the Founders specifically avoided setting up Christianity as any sort of favored or privileged religion. Try as you might to argue otherwise, the facts are not in your favor. That is why you and other believers do not have the right to dictate your religious views with the force of law. In the matter of same-sex marriage, the courts are now recognizing that the only argument against its legalization is that it goes against certain religions. But those religions do not have the right to impose their requirements on everyone else.

            With that in mind, I say, as many others have done, if you’re against same-sex marriage, the answer is quite simple. Don’t have one.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            It is true that that the founders specifically avoided setting up a church-run state or a state-run church (i.e. a theocracy), and thank God they didn’t. In such a situation, those in power would always be able to impose their theological beliefs on others, and the founders were right to avoid it; after all, they had enough examples of both in Europe to make that clear.

            But they never intended our government to be devoid of the moral influence of religion, particularly Christianity (the overwhelming majority of them were Bible-believing Christians). This much is abundantly clear from the multitude of statements made by many of the founders (not the least of which was their acknowledgment of the divine source of all rights in the Declaration of Independence). Here are a few:

            Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

            Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. – George Washington

            Religion and morality…are necessary to good government, good order and good laws, for “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice” – William Paterson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

            Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. – Benjamin Franklin

            The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity – John Adams

            Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. – James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Judge

            I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this divine book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and all those sober and frugal virtues which constitute the soul of republicanism. – Benjamin Rush

            Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement – John Hancock

            The law…dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. – Alexander Hamilton, signer of the Constitution

            Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country…God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both. – John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration

            Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

            Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. – John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers and first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

            The Holy Scriptures…can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses. – James McHenry, signer of the Constitution, Secretary of War

            It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. – Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Judge, Father of American Jurisprudence

            The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. – George Washington’s Inaugural Address

            In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered… And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?…I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel…We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages…I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…” – Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention of 1787

            If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. – U.S. Supreme Court, 1982

            In a free society, no one has the right to force another person to ascribe to or lend support to their theological beliefs.

            But in order for any society to function at all, it must be governed first by a particular moral code. The United States, as is overwhelmingly clear above, was founded to operate on the Christian moral code–and as John Adams and others pointed out, our country (along with its unparalleled freedom and prosperity) cannot continue without it.

            No society can be cohesive and functional with two diametrically opposed value systems. Indeed, the two diametrically opposed value systems cannot coexist in the same society. One will necessarily dominate the other.

            The United States was founded on the Christian value system, and it has wrought the greatest, most free and prosperous nation in history. We have seen through the pages of history what oppressive and hedonistic value systems reap: destruction.

            Some may be zealous for hedonism and the destruction that come with it. That’s their right, I suppose. Me? I’m all for maintaining the greatest outcome in history.

            With that in mind, and returning fully to the topic, if you don’t like a business that won’t participate in your immoral acts, the answer is quite simple: don’t patronize it.

          • helligusvart

            There is no religious right to force states to redefine marriage. If you want to “marry” someone of your own sex in an apostate church that is your privilege. Forcing the rest of the country to recognize it IS NOT. Homosexuality is sick and depraved. No morally sane person is required to “recognize” this swill.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Here’s a deal for you: if you and all your pro-homosexual friends will consider the gum wrapper I offer you in exchange for your goods and/or services as legal tender (or if you are an employee of my company, for your labor), then I’ll respect your right to call a non-martial union “marriage.”

            So when I go into a pro-homosexual business and buy $20 worth of goods and give them a gum wrapper stating “It’s a $20 to me,” the pro-homosexual business will have to accept my gum wrapper as it it were really a $20 bill.

            Or if a pro-homosexual person works at my business and the agreed-upon wage is $1,000 a week, I will pay them with 50 gum wrappers (each of which I will call a $20 bill), and they will be happy with that.

            Deal?

          • helligusvart

            That’s even better.

          • Wootsauce

            I’ll respect your legally binding civil unions. Deal?

          • helligusvart

            Now that I’ll go for.

          • Mrs.Mickle

            Applause,you sir are awesome

        • helligusvart

          No deal. I won’t be satisfied until homosexuality is pushed back into the smelly closet from whence it came.

    • Dawn1257

      They are.

    • bhrush

      people for therapy were there voluntarily not under police and govt. order . who needs re-education – sodomy is not human , natural or healthy. AIDs stats prove that.

  • johnny boatmann

    Phillip’s crime: discriminating against the general public

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Phillips crime: he refused to make a cake celebrating counterfeit marriage.

      • Dawn1257

        Phillips crime: After being issued a government issued business license which in part requires compliance with ALL state and County laws, he did in fact violate the law.

        To operate a privately owned business which serves the PUBLIC, certain criteria in connection with that service requires ‘blind’ conscience to meet those requirements.

        The man is otherwise perfectly free to express his discontent while NOT serving the PUBLIC.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Once again…Phillips crime: he refused to make a cake celebrating counterfeit marriage.

          Do you even understand the difference between public and private entities? Public entities are those created, funded and run by the government; private entities are those created and run by private individuals or groups. Just because you start a business that offers goods and services to the public does not make you a “public” entity, and certainly not a servant of the government.

          You should check the purpose of business licensing. Business licensing serves no practical function, and is a manufactured practice to enable governments to collect taxes from businesses (this includes the classification of businesses for tax purposes). A business license does not have a political purpose.

          In a free country (and I realize that we may in fact not be one anymore), the business owner (you know, the person or people who put up the capital, risked the capital, invested their time and effort into creating the business, etc.) gets to decide what goods and services the business will and will not offer.

          Dictating what a business will and will not offer is not within the legitimate purview of government. I realize that liberals like the centrally-planned economies found under Marxism, but America was not founded or intended to be a Marxist country, but rather a free country. If someone does not like the goods and services being offered by a particular business, they are free to take their patronage to another business.

          What you advocate is slavery, or tyranny, i.e. where one person is able to leverage force to coerce a person to do something they do not want to do.

          As James Madison said, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…[and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. Jefferson (as well as the rest of the founders) agreed with him when he said, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.” New Jersey Governor William Livingston, signer of the U.S. Constitution, also made this clear when he said, “Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.”

          Please, we live in America, so let’s do things the American way (freedom) and not the Marxist way where the people are mere pawns of those in power.

          • Dawn1257

            No, Bob. I own a business in which I HAVE a business license for. I have to sign an application that says I will WILLINGLY abide by all State laws. In those laws are those of public accommodation.

            If I violate one of those laws by refusing to serve someone as a ‘normal course’ of ordinary business just because I don’t ‘like’ someone – even though they have done NOTHING to harm me – I am subject to legal redress.

            Please don’t place words in my mouth which do not represent my views.

            I DO NOT advocate tyranny, or slavery, or Marxism, or Communism, or discrimination. In reality your position of a disingenuous ‘conscience’ priority (which is typically not consistent when faced with other supposed “sins”) is much more aligned to those, than I.

            What I do advocate is treating each person as an equal to me on a face to face relationship. Their proclivities and preferences within their private lives has NOTHING whatsoever to do with me providing a service to them. And, neither does providing a …..cake…. to two people only wanting to live a happy life together and enjoy a special day.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Did you miss that little Constitutional part? Any law which is contrary to the U.S. Constitution (not to mention the Laws of Nature, as Sir William Blackstone said) is illegitimate and unconstitutional. Indeed, a purported law which seeks to force someone to violate their conscience is at its foundation evil and immoral.

            When you advocate the use of government force to coerce a Christian business owner to violate their conscience, to surrender their religious freedom to obey the moral dictates of their religion, you have most assuredly advocated tyranny and slavery in keeping with the worst aspects of Marxism.

            Finally, if the proclivities and preferences within the private lives of homosexuals truly had nothing whatsoever to do with the services offered by this Christian baker, then they wouldn’t be publicly drawing attention to their proclivities and preferences with a mock “marriage” ceremony…not to mention attempting to leverage the power of government to force an unwilling Christian business owner to lend his services to the counterfeiting of marriage.

            If they (and you) really had any respect whatsoever for freedom (as well as a great many other things), they and you would simply walk down the road to find a business that doesn’t mind participating in the counterfeiting of marriage. That’s what a freedom-minded person, at a minimum, would do.

          • Dawn1257

            I love how you like to invoke the Constitution superseding State law in your twisted logic. You – supposedly – one of the big supporters of States rights, and all.

            “Contrary(ness)” is subjective. It’s an interpretation, which can become a legal decision. Take the issue to court and see what comes of it. I doubt seriously you’ll see a similar verdict to that of Hobby Lobby, which is what I am without doubt to be your and others intention.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            The Constitution supersedes any law which violates the God-given Constitutionally-protected rights of American citizens. And–yes, I just checked–the First Amendment protection for religious liberty is still in there, still specifically articulated in the very first amendment.

            And no, contrary(ness) is NOT subjective. It is verifiable. You should look up what the state of contrariness means: “a fact or condition incompatible with another”, or “either of two terms (as good and evil) that cannot both be affirmed of the same subject.”

            A law that would force a Christian business owner to commit or participate in an act his religion says is immoral is contrary to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees religious liberty.

            Surely even a liberal can understand that (though accepting the reality is another matter).

          • Dawn1257

            This is the SAME argument used by those “conservatives” (irregardless of their political party affiliation, THEY WERE ALL CONSERVATIVES who held this premise) persuasion who insisted segregation was a Biblical, therefore, Constitutional right!

            I don’t see you any longer supporting that “conflict of conscience”. Why then should it be so hard for you to understand and accept this newer version of the same principle? It’s just because of them being gay. It irrational, and wrong.

            Again, Take the issue to court and let’s see where you end up. I implore you to do so!

            BTW, there’s an old saying which is apropos here. Your Constitutional rights end where my nose begins. Laws are there to protect MORE than your short-sided view of supposed Constitutional rights. That doesn’t make them Unconstitutional simply because your religious view of discriminatory ‘need’ is being extrapolated from the harm created by your actions.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            No, conservatism holds that all human beings are created equal and are entitled to all their God-given freedoms. But history shows a lot of Democrats have attempted to distort the Bible to support their zeal to tell other people what to do (sadly, as this comments section proves, Democrats are as zealous as ever to keep telling other people what to do).

            I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say “I don’t see you any longer supporting that ‘conflict of conscience.'” However, since you’ve yet to be right about much of anything, I’m pretty sure my lack of understanding what you’re talking about has just saved me some time in debunking yet another attempt you’ve made to justify quashing someone’s religious freedom.”

            The saying about Constitutional rights ending where another person’s nose begins is a good rule of thumb. What a pity you seem to have respect for a person’s nose but not a person’s business or their religious freedom. Your hostility toward religious and property rights is downright un-American.

          • Dawn1257

            I use “you” (as in “I don’t see you any longer supporting that ‘conflict of conscience.”) in the general – guilt by association sense, i.e. conservative. And you can attempt to gloss over the fact that people like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and David Duke all democrats turned republican all you want to. The historical facts is they considered themselves conservatives and held those segregation principles throughout their lives. I believe David Duke STILL does!

            People like Robert Byrd and George Wallace were the exceptions to the rule. While they remained associated politically to the political party they began with, they did so because of their constituency of Dixie Democrats. they were still……..conservatives, and they continued believing segregation was Biblical, and Constitutional.

            And, lastly your invective’s. “Un-American”? Here’s one of my own. You’re hostility toward equal recognition and understanding with the extension of Constitutional application of rights is patently pathetic and small minded.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I still have no idea what you’re talking about with this “conflict of conscience” thing.

            As for the relatively small number of Democrats who have a racist past and have switched parties (not that the number of Democrats with a racist past is small, since history makes it obvious racism was institutionalized in the Democrat Party–see the quote of Lyndon Johnson above), it’s pretty impossible to make any sort of argument that they switched because “the Democrat Party was no longer racist” or “the GOP became racist,” and that is where your implication goes. As someone from a Democrat family (who realized as a teenager with the advent of Ronald Reagan that I had really been a Republican all along), I know for a fact that many people who have left the Democrat Party for the Republican Party have done so because the Democrat Party has gone so far Left with regard to national defense, economics, morality, and pretty much everything.

            The GOP never had a racist foundation to begin with (it was founded on the abolitionist movement, went to war over slavery, freed the slaves, added amendments to the Constitution to specifically force Democrats to recognize the rights of black Americans, and fought the discriminatory practices of the Democrats for the next 150 years), and our party is still filled with people who want freedom for ALL Americans, including a number of black Republicans such as Allen West, JC Watts, Niger Innis, Tim Scott and others. You might be able to make a case that the Democrat Party is no longer racist (though the racism of their lowered expectations for black Americans would betray such a case), but you cannot make a credible case that the GOP is or ever has been a welcoming home for racists.

            Finally, I have no hostility whatsoever toward equal recognition. Homosexuals have the same right to marry that anyone else has. The problem is, as Ryan Anderson pointed out recently, they don’t want to get married: they want to call a non-marital relationship “marriage,” and that’s fraud.

            My statement that your hostility toward freedom is un-American was not “invective.” It was a statement of fact based on your behavior when compared to American principles.

          • Dawn1257

            You want to see “un-American”?

            Go find the nearest mirror, stand in front of it and point straight ahead.

            My assertions ARE based upon the American tradition and ideals of dissenting opinions. For you to call into question my own loyalty, my own service to this Country, and my own commitment to defending those Constitutional principles makes you a treacherous and pompous, egotistically arrogant, pilgarlic.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Your fallacious assertions may be in keeping with the American tradition of dissent (though not dissent with the moral standard–that has never been an American tradition), but they are not in keeping with the American tradition which respects and champions freedom–especially religious freedom, as found in the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

            And actually, I haven’t so much called your loyalty into question as you have tarnished it yourself, by repeatedly and vehemently championing tyranny here on this page.

            And while you may dislike my recognition of your disloyalty, you must equally dislike that of two of our greatest founding fathers, because they indicted you 200 years ago:

            Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country…God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both. – John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration

            Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. – President George Washington

          • Dawn1257

            To the John Witherspoon quote: I believe in a Supreme Being, Same as that of Thomas Jefferson.

            So, that one is OUT!

            To the George Washington quote: See the above.

            You truly are a pitiable person. If this Country EVER were to become the vision you and those like you would have it be, there will be no peace in the world and no chance of it ever coming. There being so little peace as there is now in this world is attributive to like-minded Theocratic morasses such as yourself. Think Taliban, ISIS, Hamas, etc.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            You can believe in a supreme being all you like (in fact, Satan believes in God, and KNOWS God exists), but if you are opposing what God says is right and championing what God has said is wrong, then you have made yourself, as Witherspoon said, an enemy of God. Like a spoiled child, you can attempt to fool yourself that you’ve found some sort of moral loophole to get out of your guilt…but you can’t fool God and you can’t fool those who know Him.

            I see you have as much contempt for George Washington as you have for John Witherspoon. Not surprising.

            My vision for America is the same vision our founders had for her, and it’s pretty clear from their multitude of statements that their vision for America was that she remain founded solidly on the moral foundation that made the blessings of liberty possible in the first place.

            It isn’t me you hold in contempt. It is America and all that she stands for that you hold in contempt–America and your Creator. You might escape judgement for holding the former in contempt, but not the latter. I hope you’ll end your war with America and with God before it’s too late.

          • Dawn1257

            I have no “war” with either my Country, nor my Spiritual leader.

            You on the other hand are still hellbent on seeing this Country become a Theocratic monolithic oligarchy. YOU, are the true destroyer of freedom, not I. You just go on believing in your mythical Bible and all that mumbo-jumbo about silly superstitious sins that actually don’t exist. I’m…….just fine. But, the day will come and sooner than you could ever want, when marriage will be equal between any two consenting adults of either sex or the same sex nationwide. Even in your home town of Rapid City! On that day I be dancing and happy. You still be sad, angry and miserable. Enjoy it!

            I absolutely DO hold contempt for what you stand for, because that ‘standing’ and representation IS NOT what this Country was founded as. As much as you cannot stand it, the truth is, the Constitution very much IS a living, breathing document and it grows stronger and healthier with each cycle of breath. That is unless you and those of your kind just get lucky enough to control all three branches and stand on the nostrils of freedom to snuff it out. We both know that’s a pipe-dream.

            We ARE NOT a Christian founded Nation and never have been. That does not mean we aren’t able to be religious in respect for others of differing views in Spirit. And, that principle IS what our Framers meant with the 1st Amendment. To have respect and tolerance for ALL religious viewpoints but malice toward none, favor-ability toward none. No laws of respect placing one form above any other. With that, it also means that there are limits to ‘free’ expression when your religion smacks my nose. Refusing to abide by a State law which prohibits you denying me a service you normally provide to any other based upon a supposed – and subjective – religious objection and you choose to do so anyway, just smacked my nose.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            It is quite clear that you are at war with America, and at war with God. Your repeated statements betray both, especially in light of the fact that it has been demonstrated repeatedly that your opinions and agenda are at odds with the values of both.

            And as I have said for around the sixth time already, I no more want a theocracy than the founders did. But as the founders made clear, our free nation cannot function when there is a war against moral values. You can have a repressive country without moral values, and you can have a tyrannical country without moral values, but the unique thing that is America–including all the blessings of liberty and prosperity that come with it–will die without morality. As George Washington, John Adams, John Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and so many others pointed out, the moral values of Christianity are the “oxygen” of our country. Take away our moral foundation, and America will be destroyed.

            Of course, with your evident and obvious hostility toward freedom, I’m sure you won’t miss America. I’m sure you’ll miss all the prosperity that can only come from a firm moral foundation…but like virtually all liberals, you’re too self-obsessed and obtuse to even realize you are shooting yourself in the foot with your hostility toward our moral foundation (As George Washington put it, “The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.”)

            I must have missed that requirement in the Constitution that all Americans must “have respect and tolerance for ALL religious viewpoints but malice toward none.” Darn it, I just looked again and STILL can’t find it. And since the founders obviously displayed a distinct preference for Christian values and principles (while allowing all Americans to hold their particular religious views according to the dictates of their own consciences), it’s pretty obvious that not only does the First Amendment not intend that, but that the founders also never intended such nonsense.

            Once again, as William Blackstone, Alexander Hamilton and others have pointed out, no law that is contrary to Natural Law has any validity. And even more clear is the fact that no law that infringes on the God-given rights specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution have any validity. A requirement forcing a Christian business owner to violate his conscience and participate in the counterfeiting of marriage most definitely violates the First Amendment protection of religious freedom, as well as the freedom of conscience the founders talked so often about.

            I’m glad you have finally admitted you loathe what I stand for, and has been repeatedly made clear, I stand for the founding values of our great nation. So you have admitted that you loathe the founding values of America.

            It’s so refreshing when liberals come clean about where they’re really coming from.

          • helligusvart

            And you have no malice for us. The time is coming, Dawn, when we will be partying with God in heaven and you will be burning in Hell, where the conditions there will do more than “smack your nose.”

          • helligusvart

            Who supports ISIS and Hamas by opposing Israel? Liberals, like our Kenya-born president.

          • helligusvart

            Methinks Mr. Ellis has just won this argument.

          • helligusvart

            You are hopelessly deceived if you think that same-sex marriage is an “American tradition.” More likely, you’re just being disingenuous.

          • helligusvart

            But it’s typical of homosexuals and their sympathizers. They MUST force us to approve. They can’t STAND it when we disapprove. AAARRGH!!!

          • helligusvart

            That’s right. YOUR right to “public accommodation” ends where MY RELIGION begins.

          • Iseenothing

            I do not argue with your “public accommodation” argument and would be grounds for a law suit not a re-education camp. Any time a government needs to re-educate a certain part of society is a threat to all of us.

          • Dawn1257

            SO, let’s move to the issue of “re-education camps”.

            Bob LOVES hyperbolic headlines. Little of his diatribe is based upon fact. Ask him to provide the address for such “re-education camps”. He can’t because they are figment of his hyperbolic mindless imagination.

            Public Accommodation is what is at the heart of these issues. When that type of law is voted on and approved within the several States, this is what is required of businesses to abide by.

            And that is really all there is to it.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Yes, hyperbole gets the attention. And it is an apt analogy of what is being sought here. In the past, Leftists took dissenters off to camps to “re-educate” them. Today they send them to some counseling service to “re-educate” them on the party-approved thinking. The intent and outcome is the same.

            As for public accommodation, I could have sworn I explained this in somewhat extensive detail earlier. Why is reality so hard for liberals to come to terms with?

          • Dawn1257

            What you fail to grasp with the Public Accommodation principle is that when you offer the PUBLIC a service and are licensed to do so, you ACCEPT certain understandings of LAW. Whatever those laws are within the State you live and operate from.

            If those certain LAWS prescribe nondiscrimination tenets, and they specifically apply to PRIVATE enterprise along with PUBLIC entities, you don’t get a pass because of some quasi moral objection.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Again, did you miss the part about Constitutional law (not to mention the requirement that laws be in harmony with the Law of Nature, as described by William Blackstone)?
            When you start a business, you do NOT surrender your God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom.

            My business is licensed, and no where on that license or in writing anywhere did I agree to become a servant of the government, obey unconstitutional laws, obey laws that violate the Law of Nature, or participate in immoral acts.

            We live (for now) in a free country with a free market system. If you don’t like a business that won’t bake a cake to help two homosexuals counterfeit marriage, go find one that will. That’s the American way.

          • Rob T

            So you also oppose laws outlawing businesses from refusing service to blacks and Jews?

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            There wouldn’t have been any laws outlawing businesses from refusing service to blacks and Jews if Democrats hadn’t first imposed laws on free businesses to force those businesses to refuse service to blacks and Jews.

            Why do liberals hate freedom so much? I’ll just never understand that.

          • Rob T

            Doesn’t answer my question: Do you oppose laws outlawing businesses from refusing service to blacks and Jews?

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I oppose all laws which dictate to free businesses the goods and services they must provide, and to whom they must provide those services, especially those Democrat-passed laws telling businesses they must discriminate against some Americans on the basis of their skin color or ethnicity.

            In the absence of such Democrat laws, most businesses (even those somewhat inclined toward racism) would have been able to figure out that you make a whole lot more money serving ALL customers, and not just customers of a certain skin color.

            Meanwhile, we must continue to recognize that behaviors and innate, morally-neutral physical characteristics are vastly different. We discriminate against behaviors legitimately all the time. I’m pretty sure you don’t hang out with people who constantly pick their nose or fart all the time. And if you owned a business, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t allow someone to hang out in there who was behaving in a manner that was disruptive to your business or contradicted the business image you wanted to portray. So don’t be a hypocrite.

            We need to also remember that this Christian business owner wasn’t refusing to sell cookies etc. to these men because they were homosexuals; he refused to engage in an act (counterfeiting marriage) that Christian doctrine makes clear is immoral.

          • Rob T

            I’m going to take that as a “yes.” At least you’re consistent.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I think black economist Walter E. Williams is right:

            Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes? In a free society, I say yes. Let’s look at it. When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable. The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.

            You say, Williams, that’s different. It’s not like public transportation, restaurants and hotel service in which Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act “prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.” While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn’t change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner…

            …One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit racial or any other kind of discrimination by private parties. Moreover, the true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association doesn’t come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive.

            In case anyone missed it the first time, Mr. Williams skin color is black. I’m pretty sure he’s not a racist.

            And let’s not forget: refusing to participate in an immoral act cannot legitimately be compared to discrimination based on an innate, morally-neutral physical characteristic.

          • Rob T

            I’m not really concerned about the skin color of the person you’re quoting (that’s just a twist on the “appeal to authority” fallacy). I mean, some women opposed women’s right to vote. So don’t try and put too much stock in finding black people to quote.

            Meanwhile, of course, many people once considered racial mixing or challenges to white supremacy to be immoral act. But frankly, since we’re talking about gay people in committed relationships, I have not idea why you’re bringing “immoral acts” into the conversation.

          • Iseenothing

            actually, we are talking about the governments ability to decide who goes into re-education their ability to put them in re-education and why they should.

          • Rob T

            That’s the topic of the post, but it’s reasonable for people to discuss closely-related topics.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            So you do suppose Mr. Williams is racist against people of his own skin color, then? Mr. Williams apparently fails to recognize the plight of his people; too bad he lacks the wisdom of elitist white liberals.

            By the way, there is no Biblical foundation for white supremacy or objection to interracial marriages. Like some “Christians” today like to distort the Bible and manufacture “justifications” for their immoral behavior, so it has been done in the past, too.

            You have no idea why I am bringing “immoral acts” into the conversation? When the Bible (that the Christian business owner believes in) makes it clear that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that homosexual behavior is abhorrent to God? And that the homosexuals are attempting to leverage government force to coerce the business owner into participating in the affirmation of such things?

            If you truly don’t have any idea why (and aren’t just being deliberately obtuse), then you aren’t morally or intellectually qualified to be leaving a single comment here. That kind of ignorance would be truly breathtaking.

          • Rob T

            I have no idea whether Williams is racist. I hope not. But your appeal to his skin color is intellectually lazy.

            Meanwhile, just because you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and provides no basis for white supremacy or opposing interracial marriage, but of course these are not unanimous views among Christians.

            And of course, you’re the one who called gay marriage an immoral act, so that’s why I asked you about it. But if your focus is on the business owner’s beliefs, you should write more carefully, for instance:

            And let’s not forget: refusing to participate in an act one considers immoralcannot legitimately be compared to discrimination based on an innate, morally-neutral physical characteristic.

            But then of course you have to deal with the fact that not all religious people believe race to be a morally-neutral characteristic, so your whole paragraph falls apart.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            The fact that I pointed out his skin color is not intellectually lazy. Rather, it highlights the fact that he is in a particularly insightful position form which to discuss the issue. The fact that he is an economist is also of no small consequence. The fact that you would like to discount them is disingenuous.

            I don’t just believe the Bible condemns homosexual behavior; I know for a fact that it does. It doesn’t matter what is or is not a unanimous view among Christians. What matters is what God, the author of our religion, says, and he has clearly said that these things are wrong. Anyone stating anything to the contrary is not being a faithful adherent to the Christian religion, and has therefore forfeited any claim in being worth listening to in that regard. We don’t get to change or ignore reality just because we don’t like it.

            This Christian business owner happens to be acting in harmony with and adherance to the dictates of his religion; those who disagree are not. His religious freedom should be respected, not treated with contempt.

          • Rob T

            The fact that I pointed out his skin color is not intellectually lazy. Rather, it highlights the fact that he is in a particularly insightful position form which to discuss the issue.

            If you’d presented it that way originally, I wouldn’t have called it intellectually lazy. But you did not.

            Meanwhile, your views on Christianity remain just that: your views. You are not Christ.

            Finally, I don’t have as serious a problem with you as I do other commentators because you believe the freedom of religiously-motivated racists should be as protected as the freedom of religiously-motivated anti-gays. I have a bigger problem with those who only advocate religious freedom for views they endorse, which of course isn’t religious freedom at all.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            No, I presented it precisely for the reason I stated: because a black person (not to mention an economist) is in a particularly insightful position to recognize actual discrimination…yet be able to also recognize the value and legitimacy of freedom.

            No, I am not Christ. I have never claimed to be. But Christ did tell us very clearly what he considers to be moral and what he considers to be immoral. You don’t have to like it, but it’s pretty clear, and if one is going to call themselves one of His followers, they ought to at least try to obey what he has said (not pretend he didn’t say it or distort it into license for whatever they want to do).

            Finally, I believe ALL Americans are entitled to freedom–freedom to do with their property as they see fit, freedom to run their business the way they see fit, freedom to say what they want, and freedom to believe what they want (even if I don’t agree with any of it).

            I even believe in the freedom of a homosexual business owner to refuse to make a cake that says “Marriage is only between a man and a woman” or to make a cake for a real wedding, and in the freedom of a black business owner to refuse service to a white person because the business owner is a bigot, and the freedom of a Muslim business owner to refuse service to a Christian because they don’t like infidels.

            It would be so nice if homosexual activists and their “useful idiots” could also respect the freedom of Christian business owners.

          • Rob T

            You understand that I can back and look at what you wrote about his skin color, right? And I can see it’s not what you’re saying now.

            Again — I have less problem with you than with those (and there are many) who say, “No one should have to serve a customer against their beliefs” and then immediately contradicting themselves with “No one should be able to refuse service based on race.”

            By the way, if we’re going to talk about “useful idiots” I’d refer you to the supporters of BarbWire who believe the many falsehoods offered by the site’s contributors.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Yes, I understand that you can look back and what I wrote about his skin color. Whether you are or not is doubtful. And while you can guess as to the reason for what I said, I suppose it depends on your mind-reading ability whether you actually know. But I have offered a reasonable explanation several times now, but as is usually the case with liberals, you just summarily reject realities you don’t like.

            Honestly, I don’t care whether you have a little or a large problem with me. What’s really bad is that you seem to have such hostility toward reality you don’t like, and toward the religious freedom of Christians in particular.

            Since “useful idiots” was a term coined to describe the idiot sympathizers with Marxism, and the assault on religious freedom is in complete keeping with the behavioral characteristics of Marxism, it’s pretty clear who the useful idiots really are.

          • Rob T

            I wrote:

            If you’d presented it that way originally, I wouldn’t have called it intellectually lazy. But you did not.

            Because you presented it like this:

            In case anyone missed it the first time, Mr. Williams skin color is black. I’m pretty sure he’s not a racist.

            Nothing in there at all about “the fact that he is in a particularly insightful position form which to discuss the issue.”

            Again — if you’d presented it that way originally, I wouldn’t have called it intellectually lazy. But you did not.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I usually assume that most people who take the time to log onto the internet, read an article and leave comments are at least intellectually proficient enough to be able, without having it spelled out in all caps and neon signs, to glean that a black man might be in a particularly insightful position from which to discuss” the issue of discrimination.

            Perhaps it was intellectually lazy of me to assume that much from all commenters, especially knowing that I was dealing with liberals.

          • Rob T

            I see. You’re looking down on me because I should have been able to know that you meant to say what you did not say even as you were falsely claiming you said it.

            Got it.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I’m deriding you because you claim to not have understood something that would be pretty obvious to most rational and mature people.

          • Rob T

            And I’m on your case because you claim to have presented something in a way that you did not present it.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I can only write with the average rational and mature person in mind. If you are incapable or unwilling to employ either of those characteristics, I can’t help that.

          • Rob T

            Can you quote Christ on homosexuality?

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Yes I can.

            Hopefully you are aware that Christ is a member of the Trinity, the Godhead, and is therefore one with the triune being we call “God.” This means that when one member of the Trinity speaks, all have spoken.

            Hopefully you are also aware that the Bible is known as “the Word” or “the Word of God.” Hopefully you are also aware that, as we are told in the first chapter of the Gospel of John,” Jesus Christ is also known as “the Word.” The Bible is God’s written word (or message) to humanity, and Jesus was the personification of God’s spoken word to humanity, both in agreement with one another.

            Having laid the groundwork for you to follow, you should now be ready to understand what God (including Jesus Christ, who was present at and involved in the creation of the world) told us in Genesis about his design for human sexuality: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

            He also told us in several other places that sexual behavior contrary to this design was immoral. He made special mention of homosexual behavior and was even emphatic that he found it abhorrent. He made it graphically clear what he was talking about, too: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” and “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”

            God also said in other places such as Genesis and Judges that homosexual behavior was immoral and disgraceful.

            Christ the living Word also affirmed God’s design for human sexuality while he walked the earth 2,000 years ago, stating: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.”

            Christ’s apostles reaffirmed that God says homosexual behavior is immoral. These examples include Romans chapter 1: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

            First Corinthians chapter 6 also says that, among other habitual sins, practicers of homosexual behavior are not entitled to Heaven. Homosexual behavior is also condemned in the first chapter of the first book of Timothy.

            Christ couldn’t have made it more clear: homosexual behavior is immoral. And anyone who says anything contrary or does anything to give the impression that it is morally acceptable is behaving contrary to the teachings of Christ.

            It would be evil to use force to coerce someone to violate the teachings of their God. Yet that is what some are trying to do to this Christian baker.

          • Rob T

            That’s a very long-winded way of saying, “No, I can’t quote Christ on homosexuality.”

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            That’s a very thorough way of proving, “Yes, I can quote Christ on homosexuality.” But as liberals usually do, you just pretend that realities which reveal the bankruptcy of your position don’t exist. It’s no wonder most conservatives don’t waste their time trying to educate liberals; they repeatedly prove they’re hostile to facts.

          • helligusvart

            Only wackos like Christian Identity would argue that race is not morally neutral. And they’re all going to Hell unless they repent.

          • helligusvart

            Because ALL homosexual acts are an abomination to God, and will be punished accordingly in the lake of fire. You know this. Therefore, you condemn yourself.

          • helligusvart

            No one does that, Rob. You’re setting up a straw man argument.

          • Rob T

            You should understand of course that the Democrats who imposed Jim Crow laws on the south were not necessarily liberals — that’s why so many of them were comfortable changing to Republicans under Reagan.

            If you’re interested, google the Romney Goldwater letter from 1964 in which they talk about whether the Democrat/Republican split should reflect an ideological liberal/conservative split. You see that this alignment of parties with ideologies was not so pronounced in the Jim Crow era

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Yes, Democrats eventually figured out that they could do just as well (if not better) by pandering to blacks and keeping them on the government plantation of dependency.

            Or as liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson put it regarding his support for civil rights legislation: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

            The motive was pretty clear.

            And Southern Democrats didn’t switch to the Republican Party under Reagan because they could supposedly “take their racism with them,” as you imply. They switched because Reagan proved the complete bankruptcy of Democrat ideas (especially in the wake of Jimmy Carter), primarily in the areas of economics and national defense. I know. I was one of them, a teenager who grew up in a Democrat home. When Reagan came along, I realized “I’ve been a Republican all along!” Meanwhile, my racist Democrat grandfather? He hated Reagan and the GOP and remained a Democrat till the day he died.

            Sorry, the Democrat Party’s history of racism and hatred for freedom is both clear and ongoing.

            Meanwhile, the Republican Party continues to stand for freedom–for ALL Americans, including religious freedom (which just might be the freedom Democrats are most hostile to).

          • James Lopure

            This is merely the latest attempt at the most disingenuous argument conservatives make in their attempts to smear liberals. To those of you for whom history was just one more class to sleep though, here are some facts. Try to keep up.

            First, you need to realize that political parties change their stripes. All one need do is look at the hard right turn of the Republican Party in the ‘80s to see this to be true. In other words, the democratic and republican parities of today are quite different from their earlier political alignments. That said, there have always also been liberal and conservative factions in society, and they must be seen through the eyes of the period in time in which they existed. The conservatives who opposed women’s suffrage in the beginning of the 20th century are different from conservatives today. Most wouldn’t think of attempting to take the vote away from women (though Ann Coulter will joke about it). You know — the thought occurs to me that one definition of conservative might be: A liberal who’s a hundred year late to the party.

            Up until the late 1950 and early 1960s, the Democratic party was divided into two main camps, the more progressive Northern and Western wings, and Southern conservative “Dixiecrats” who were racist segregationists and the represented the last vestiges of the old confederacy (they were also the political descendants of the men who attacked the integrated meetings in 1866 New Orleans). These included Senators Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, John McClellan, James, Eastland, and Herman Talmadge. Governors Orval Faubus and George Wallace, and such luminaries as Bull Connor and Jesse Helms. They ran presidential candidates against the progressive wing of the Democratic party (that noted liberal, Strom Thurmond, won four southern states in 1948 running on a platform of segregation).

            Now, what you folks pushing the “Democratic party as racist thugs” theme can’t quite grasp is that party affiliation doesn’t matter; ideological orientation does. And those who promoted racial purity, Jim Crow, and segregation were the social conservatives of their era. To argue other wise is to make the absurd claim that Thurmond, Faubus, Connor and George Wallace were flaming liberals. Try that one and you’d be laughed out of all the history departments this side of Bob Jones University. For more evidence, just ask yourself which party most (not all) of the conservatives racists who opposed the end of Jim Crow and integration ended up — yep, that’s right: the GOP! Little wonder why; that because their views were tolerated there — if not actively encouraged.

            More proof of this is the famous exchange between LBJ and his young aid Bill Moyers after the signing of the Civil Rights act of 1964 (opposed by Southern Conservatives — like Thurmond, by the way): “Bill, I’ve just handed the South to the Republicans for fifty years, certainly for the rest of our life times.”

            Turned out to be true.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Liberals smear themselves simply by being who they are. All conservatives have to do is point it out.

            While it is true that the Republican Party of today is but a shell of the moral giant it once was (it was founded on the effort to ensure freedom for all Americans, after all), and that the Democrat Party has also changed to become worse than it has ever been (at least in Jack Kennedy’s day, most Democrats recognized that you can’t tax your way to prosperity, and that Marxism was evil), the critical differences in the party remain unchanged.

            The Democrat Party has been dedicated for over 150 years to enslaving certain Americans and forcing certain Americans to shut up and do as they’re told, and it remains that way today, as both the anti-freedom stance against Christians displayed here, as well as the soft bigotry of lowered expectations displayed toward black Americans, illustrate.

            The Republican Party has, since it’s foundation on the abolitionist movement over 150 years ago, been dedicated to freedom for ALL Americans, and continues to champion freedom for ALL Americans.

            In the civil rights era, when Democrats controlled congress (and figured out that they could get more political mileage by pandering to minorities and making them dependent on government largess), a greater percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights legislation than did Democrats.

            Oh, and what did Lyndon Johnson really say about his motivations for (finally, after 150 years) supporting civil rights legislation?

            “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

            But again, let’s not get distracted by the red herrings of the Left and remember: there is no legitimate comparison between an immoral sexual behavior and an innate, morally-neutral physical characteristic. As many black Americans have pointed out, such fallacous attempts are nothing more than a thin excuse for immoral behavior.

          • James Lopure

            You quite adroitly managed to weasel out of all discussion of ideology and instead set up your own red herring of focusing upon party, rather than progressive values versus conservative values. I still see no valid refutation of the argument that throughout the history of our country, indeed throughout the history of the whole of Western civilization, conservative forces within each era resisted progress — the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, unionization, and the civil rights and promoted Jim Crow. Want proof? Ignoring party, how would you describe George Wallace, Jesse Helms, Orval Faubus and Strom Thurmond’s political and cultural ideology — liberal or conservative?

        • Iseenothing

          BS….no shoes, no shirt, no service. Every service if free to choose who it serves.

          • Opposition Research

            “No shoes, no shirt, no service” are all based on what a customer does while in the establishment. Nobody disputes that.

            What SOME people are seeking is the special privilege of discriminating against an entire class of people simply because of who they are.

            Religious liberty has never been construed to allow people to do harmful things to others when doing so would otherwise be against the law.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            When a person comes into a business and demands that a business render a good or service that the business does not offer, then the customer is most certainly doing something. They are engaging in a coercive and potentially tyrannical act, especially if they attempt to leverage force behind their demand.

            And no, no one is seeking any privilege of discriminating against an entire class of people simply because of who they are. The business owner does not want to be forced to participate in a behavior which is contrary to the moral dictates of their religion, i.e. the counterfeiting of marriage which God has made clear in both Old and New Testaments is between a man and a woman.

            If you review the video (and the facts of the case), you will find that the business owner is not refusing to sell cookies or whatever to homosexuals. He is refusing to create a cake which assists in the counterfeiting of a marriage.

            There are few things more harmful in a civilized society than forcing a free person to violate their conscience.

            As John Jay, First Chief of U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, said, “Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience.”

          • Opposition Research

            Please see above reply to Michex.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            What about it?

          • trustingonlyinhim

            At what point does it stop. I find it ironic that the same gays that do not believe the Bible, & claim not to believe in the God of the the Bible, will demand to be married in in a building that they hate, by a man that they normally wouldn’t even speak with, & have him violate the very faith which he tries to guide his life by. Churches are open to the public as are most houses of worship, they to must operate within a set of parameters, both secular & spiritual. So what happens when a pastor, preacher, Rabbi, etc, decide to stand by their faith & not commit, condone or give approval to the very acts that their faith tell them is abhorrent & sinful. According to the “laws” that are now being written & rewritten to appease a minor (a very minor) demographic, & the decision in the bakery case, then all these pastors, rabbis etc must be sent to indoctrination (& yes I intentionally use that word) classes. So what happens when they simply say “NO” ? Fines, imprisonment, seizure of property & assets ? Where does it end, who decides, what is the basis of that decision. Maybe you don’t want to go but so far, but guaranteed, someone else will always want to take it one step farther. Till finally shouts not heard since the Circus Maximus : ”
            Et adducam super terram Christianorum”
            Bring on the Christians

          • Dawn1257

            So because I’m ‘black’ means that I have to eat out in back, out of sight of the ‘white’ – good – people? Because you “choose” how and who you’ll serve?

            JIm Crow is alive and well!

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Actually, Jim Crow laws sought to leverage government to dictate to businesses (as well as enshrine in PUBLIC accommodations) the discrimination against certain Americans based on innate, morally-neutral physical characteristics….rather like homosexual activists and their “useful idiots” seek to leverage government force to dictate to businesses discrimination against Christian business owners today. I guess the Democrat party never really changes, having been hostile to freedom for over 150 years.

          • Iseenothing

            If Dawn is truly black, his skin should be crawling now. This emigration situation is analogous to freeing the slaves. The KKK was formed to keep blacks out of the work force because it would take jobs from whites. Fast forward to today and we see how the democrats have destroyed the black family. Now they are not even bothering to destroy the family. They don’t have to. Who is this going to hurt the most?

          • Iseenothing

            let’s stay focused. We are talking about religious freedom and the governments ability to force the population into re-education camps they choose because the government does not approve of your religious beliefs.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Liberals don’t want to stay focused. They like to jump from protest to protest (when each protest is successively debunked and exposed for the drivel it is) to keep the reader distracted from the bankruptcy of their argument.

            A few strawmen and red herrings make a good side-dish for the liberal, as well.

          • helligusvart

            No one wants to do this, Dawn. You’re setting up a straw man argument.

          • Dash Riprock

            Does the baker allege that gay sex was occurring within his bakery?

        • bhrush

          so you support govt. dictatorship through a licensing process ? guess free enterprise is not in your concept.

          • Dawn1257

            No. Now you’re being hyperbolic.

            I support what I have said so.

      • Iseenothing

        His crime was to hold religious beliefs and to choose his business serves.

  • Iseenothing

    Think about what we are arguing about. This is really not about service to homosexuals it is about the power of government to “re-educate” and why someone needs to be re-educated.

    • Michex

      Homosexuals say they are born that way. If true, maybe many heterosexuals are born with a natural disgust of homosexuality and the people who practice it. They don’t want to bake a wedding cake. That is their business. Leave them alone. They were “born that way.”

      • Dawn1257

        Your logic: ‘I’m a racist, bigot, terrorist, I can’t he’p it, I was born that way.’

        You see the problem in that?

        • Azrael

          Yes, you don’t like it when the tables are turned because it exposes your position for what it is – deranged.

  • Michex

    Funny how the sainted homosexuals are always trying to force people or government to do things the homosexual way.
    Heterosexuals never tell homosexuals what to do or force them to do it, at least now that it is legal to engage in homosexual sex.
    Force someone to take a class? Force someone to bake a cake? You homosexuals are juveniles.
    Heterosexuals require nothing of homosexuals. They have always had equal rights BUT we do not make laws on the basis of sexuality, especially those that are aberrant and that disgust most people (it’s true. sorry).
    We don’t have special laws for sado-masochists or leather freaks or people with foot fetishes. What makes homosexuals so high and holy?

    Homosexuals have always had the same marriage rights as everyone else: marry someone of the opposite sex, just as has been done since the dawn of time.
    Don’t like that? Tough luck.

    • Rob T

      “Heterosexuals require nothing of homosexuals. They have always had equal rights ”

      Really? You mean like when we were barred from federal employment?

      • MarkSebree

        How about being denied a security clearance just for being gay? How about being arrested, jailed, and chemically castrated just for being gay? Reference Alan Turing, a major pioneer in computer programming. He committed no actual crime. He was punished simply for being romantically and sexually attracted to men. I don’t think he was even in a relationship at the time. He committed suicide less than a year later because of what he suffered.

        • Rob T

          Yeah, Michex is strangely silent now.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Maybe he has a life beyond trolling websites. Be patient or just shut up.

          • Rob T

            Matthew, he’s posted enough other comments in the past few hours that your explanation isn’t plausible. Meanwhile, of course, you yourself can see that his statement about “always had equal rights” was utter nonsense.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Actually, he is right.

          • Rob T

            So you believe that a group which was officially barred from federal employment “have always had equal rights”?

            Really?

  • Michex

    To refuse to bake a **wedding** cake is not discrimination against homosexuals as people.
    The baker would have baked any other cake for any homosexual that walked in the door. No questions asked.
    The baker just did not like the idea of a homosexual **wedding**, or a cake celebrating a foot fetish or bestiality or sexual orgies.
    You homosexuals’ logic and facts are all twisted. You can’t think well.

    • Opposition Research

      Granted, refusing to bake a wedding cake is a minor issue. There’s a part of me that reeeeeeeally wants to take your side on that one. (It would help if the would-be buyers of the cake had reason to expect that the store might not want to fulfill the request, like some outward indication that the business is run by a devout conservative Christian.)

      But at risk of sounding just like the rightwinger who claims “same sex marriage will lead to incest,” it’s my concern that you won’t stop there. It’s my concern that you will want to claim a special right not to hire them, or not rent to them, or withhold some other need that is critical to their lives. (It’s already legal not to rent to them if you, the landlord, live in the same duplex or triplex and would have to experience it every day, and, ya know? I actually agree with that.)

      I could give a flippant rightwing-style retort like “nobody’s forcing him to start and run a bakery, so his religious rights aren’t being violated.”

      But no, I’m not like that. We can wheel and deal on concessions like making a wedding cake, if I could somehow have your movement’s trustworthy word of honor that you would not, in the future, seek further, much more damaging special privileges like refusing to hire or rent to a group of people.

  • TimJ

    The guy violated the law. His so called “religion” doesn’t trump civil law. Stop trying to create a special class of citizens, the religiously devout, who can ignore whatever law they like based on their “religious conviction”, leaving the rest of us to obey the law. Gays aren’t special, nor are the religious (although the former pays more taxes than the latter).

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      The Christian baker violated a pretend law that was itself in violation of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom.

      The homosexual activists had every right to seek out an immoral baker who would participate in their attempt to counterfeit marriage–and in this day and age of moral bankruptcy, odds are they would have quickly found one.

      Instead, they chose to leverage the force of government to attempt to coerce a private business owner to violate his conscience.

      That is tyrannical and un-American.

      • SeanRobinson

        Still sad about the 14th amendment, eh? :(

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          You mean the one Republicans passed to force tyrannical Democrats to respect freedom? Since Democrats are still enemies of freedom, as this kind of activity shows, apparently it’s the Democrats who are still sad about the Fourteenth Amendment.

          • SeanRobinson

            So which widely understood and accepted theory do you deny more: evolution or partisan realignment?

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            It never fails. Every time liberals start to realize they have woefully lost an argument (which happens pretty much every time they open their mouths around a conservative), they start talking about evolution.

            Let’s try to stay on topic. It’s already drifted far enough too many times here.

          • SeanRobinson

            So, you can’t figure out how much of a strawman talking about pre-realignment attitudes on civil rights is? Are you sort of a moron?

            Sorry that you are also incapable of understanding the responsibilities that come with operating a business that serves the public. It has to serve the ENTIRE public. You don’t get to pick and choose based on race, religion, or – in some jurisdictions – sexual orientation. This is a fight that people like you have fought and lost again and again and again.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            So you can’t figure out, even with the evidence presented to you on a silver platter, that while the packaging has changed, the bigotry is still the same? Well…

            Apparently it is you who not only seems incapable of understanding the responsibilities a business owner has to operate ethically (or perhaps you’d rather deal with unethical and immoral businesses, eh?), but of appreciating or even allowing for the religious freedom of a business owner. Apparently you think that a person gives up their God-given and Constitutionally-protected religious liberty just because they start a business. What abject asininity.

            And to be clear, this Christian business owner did not refuse to serve even these homosexuals. He refused to participate in their attempt to counterfeit marriage. Perhaps you should watch the video before you make your ignorance even more glaring.

          • SeanRobinson

            I agree with you on the facts of the case, but not your looney tunes interpretation of them. They are not counterfeiting marriage, they are entering into the legal relationship that is civil marriage.

            It has been firmly established in case law that businesses do not have the religious right to bar customers within outlined protected groups from using a publicly offered service or limit the services offered to these groups based on their identity as such. You have lost that fight on its merits already.

            You long for a theocratic government that exists in your imagination, but you can not realize it in the real world. You lose again and the ashes of that defeat will forever remain bitter in your mouth as I continue to celebrate the advances that have been made in the fight for civil rights for my gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans friends and family. Treat this as a football spiked in your face, loser. Cry, cry, cry some more. Your tears of defeat sweeten our achievements.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            They are definitely attempting to counterfeit marriage. They are attempting to pass off something of value that is not what it claims to be. As every civilization throughout history has recognized, marriage can only be formed between a man and a woman Two men or two women sodomizing one another is not even remotely the same thing as a union between a man and a woman.

            As Ryan Anderson described attempts to counterfeit marriage recently:

            “It’s not that you don’t have the right to get married. It’s that you aren’t seeking out marriage. Marriage is by nature a union of sexually complimentary spouses, a unit of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. And just based on what you’ve said about yourself, it doesn’t sound like you’re interested in forming that sort of a union. It sounds like you’re interested in forming a union with another man, and that’s not a marriage.”

            And I should point out that this business is not baring any customers from their services. If either of these gentlemen want to enter into a marriage (which requires a woman, just the same as is required of a heterosexual), I’m sure he would be glad to make a cake for them. In fact, he has said he is perfectly willing to sell them cookies and other things that do not constitute the counterfeiting of marriage. These activists want the “right” to call something by a name that does not describe that something. That is fraud, and is also known as counterfeiting.

            And as I have stated previously here, neither I nor any Christian I know longs for a theocratic government. That’s the last thing any of us want.

            What we do want–and will fight to keep, as part of our Constitutionally-protected heritage–is the continuation of our religious freedom.

            And your zeal to see what is right defeated betrays just how evil your agenda really is.

            Evil sometimes triumphs temporarily, but it never flourishes for long, and the eventual destruction that comes is usally breathtaking. I have no doubt that America–if there is anything left by that time–will eventually return to sanity, and we will be as amazed that anyone could have once called two men sodomizing each other “marriage” as we are currently amazed that anyone could have justified owning another human being, especially based on the color of their skin.

          • danah gaz

            > . As every civilization throughout history has recognized,

            Beautiful. An appeal to tradition fallacy and argumentum ad populum fallacy in one sentence. It’s very difficult to compact dumbstupid so efficiently Well played!

            > Two men or two women sodomizing one another is not even remotely the same thing as a union between a man and a woman.

            I’m pretty sure that a man “sodomizing” a woman or a woman “sodomizing” a man, or even just making babies isn’t even remotely the same as marriage either, because words mean things. Your repeated obsession with people “sodomizing” each other is telling, however. Paging Dr. Freud. Clean up in aisle 3.

            > As Ryan Anderson described attempts to counterfeit marriage recently:

            Aww, how adorable! You managed to find a man every bit as backward as you are. You two make a cute couple. Just don’t try to get married, because that might make baby Jesus cry.

            > And as I have stated previously here, neither I nor any Christian I know longs for a theocratic government.

            You tell ‘em Bob! You only want to pass laws that allow you to violate Civil Rights legislation that interferes with your God given right to be a reactionary bigot, which is like, totally not the same thing at all.

            > And your zeal to see what is right defeated betrays just how evil your agenda really is.

            Why is it that only right wing reactionaries seem to get a copy of this gay agenda? I’ve never actually seen it before. Maybe I haven’t “sodomized” enough people yet? Tell us Bill, where did you find your copy? Can I borrow it, or are the pages stuck together?

            > Evil sometimes triumphs temporarily, but it never flourishes for long,

            Right? I hear it helps if you hold your breath, Bill, or whatever your name is. (I already forgot)

            Bless your heart.

          • Azrael

            I’m sorry to to burst your bubble but most human civilization had a much more wide and encompassing concept of marriage. In fact the idea of a union between strictly a man and a woman is a xian, or better said pauline, invention.

          • SeanRobinson

            Hahaha, crying babyman, completely forgetting all the polygamous marriages in the bible. I guess you agree with me that it is a work of fiction?

          • Dawn1257

            Who do you see referencing the 14th in connection to equal access to law today? I’ll give you just a little hint, it sure as heck ISN’T the republicans.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            No, because Democrats are too busy distorting it and misusing it (as they pervert pretty much everything they touch) from protecting Americans from their tyranny into manufacturing a license to excuse immoral behavior.

            I know it’s hard for liberals to accept, but homosexuals already have equal rights and equal protection. Unfortunately, they aren’t interested in that, just as they aren’t interested in marriage. They’re only interested in manufacturing special rights to call things by a name which clearly does not describe them.

            Or as Ryan Anderson put it recently:

            “It’s not that you don’t have the right to get married. It’s that you aren’t seeking out marriage. Marriage is by nature a union of sexually complimentary spouses, a unit of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. And just based on what you’ve said about yourself, it doesn’t sound like you’re interested in forming that sort of a union. It sounds like you’re interested in forming a union with another man, and that’s not a marriage.”

  • Dash Riprock

    Never have I seen so many failures in logic by one author’s responses to comments.

  • EvanHurst

    “The left has a particular loathing for Jews.”

    WHAT?

    Does this idiot writer think that American Jews are conservatives? Holy crap.

    The great majority of American Jews are staunch liberals. Always have been, always will be.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      *coughIsraelcough*

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      I know that many Jews are self-loathing liberals. However, the widespread loathing the Left has for Jews is a matter of fact. Just look at the multiple instances of swastikas and antisemitic statements made by the Occupy movement, as well as the anti-Israel sentiment repeatedly displayed by the Left going on today as Israel tries to defend itself from terrorist attacks.

      • danah gaz

        LOL, that’s cute. Neo-nazis in the US are generally paramilitary and right-wing

    • 2up

      Yeah when I read that I thought “what is this guy TALKING about?” American Jews are overwhelmingly Liberal Democrats, always have been.

  • helligusvart

    I pray that Jack Phillips and his staff flat out refuse to go along with this, even if they end up in jail. And those who oppose God’s plan for marriage will end up in their own re-education camp: the lake of fire.

  • 2up

    If a baker or whoever doesn’t want to serve Gay people then suing and human rights laws are not the way to go. They should however, be made to put a prominent sign where people can see it in the front window or behind the cash register that says “We do not serve Homosexuals” After a few more years their business will dry up on it’s own because the acceptance of Gay people is becoming so wide spread that having a sign like that in their place of business will be the equivalent of “White’s Only”

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      So you want to leverage the force of government to ostracsize a business owner in the exercise of the use of his own property, in order to attempt to legitimize someone else’s immoral behavior? How incredibly un-American and intolerant. And so typically liberal. Damn freedom; make them agree with me!

      It should also be pointed out (for the sixth time or so) that the business owner did not refuse to serve these homosexuals. He only refused to participate in their efforts to counterfeit marriage.

      Finally, there is a vast difference between an immoral sexual behavior and an innate, morally-neutral physical characteristic like skin color. There is no legitimate comparison between the two; such efforts are nothing more than ignorance and/or a liberal red herring.

      • 2up

        This Barbwire is really a freewheelin’ place. I’ve never seen a website where the writer of an article is actually allowed to come down and mix it up with those who comment. It’s kinda weird.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          There are actually a lot of places like that, especially among conservatives. Authors usually don’t bother, however, because trying to educate a liberal is like trying to educate a fencepost.

          I just can’t help but “mix it up” some. The lies of the Left are so egregious that I feel compelled to debunk them and set the record straight, even if only for the benefit of the open-minded reader who might wander by and read without commenting.

  • danah gaz

    This is satire, right? Just checking.

  • Natalie

    But the LGBTs cried that we Christians were shoving our faith down their throats. Equality, huh?

    • Azrael

      Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    • Nameless Cynic

      Just as an aside, why are the anti-gay people so fixated on things being “shoved down their throats”?

      • Natalie

        Why are homosexuals so obsessed with sex, such as this joke?

        • Nameless Cynic

          That question would make sense if I were gay. I guess you shouldn’t make assumptions, should you?

          • Natalie

            Have you seen Gay parades?

            And I didn’t call you ‘gay’. I was just asking a question.

          • http://namelesscynic.blogspot.com Nameless Cynic

            I attended the last Albuquerque Gay Pride parade. Hell of a party.

            And I don’t care if you call me gay – it just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. I just thought it was fascinating that you immediately assumed I was, as if straight guys weren’t obsessed with sex, too.

            You HAVE met some straight guys, right? Because it’s true – we are. All of us. You might meet some guys who claim they aren’t. They’re lying, because they think you’ll find them more attractive that way.

          • Natalie

            Actually it shows that you’re just jumping the gun…

            But if you support homosexuality, you’re basically in the same pod with them. Well, that’s why I am so glad God gave me discernment. Homosexual men are not that hard to sniff out these days. Just start speaking the truth about their life style, and watch how they’ll start crying. lol

          • http://namelesscynic.blogspot.com Nameless Cynic

            Jumping the gun about?…

            You know, I could SWEAR that Jesus said something about “judging people” – I wonder what it was? Golly, that’s a headscratcher…

          • Natalie

            Yes he, did…and I just know that you only know that ONE scripture, and nothing else after it. Cherry picking.

          • http://namelesscynic.blogspot.com Nameless Cynic

            Really? And you reached this conclusion based on your extensive knowledge of my life? You already decided I was gay because I didn’t bash them. How stupid would you like to look?

            Let’s start with an easy one. What, exactly, did Jesus say about homosexuality?

            And let me give you a hint: Paul (not Jesus, mind you) used the term “arsenokoites,” a compound word, generally assumed to have come from “arsen” meaning “male,” and “koites” meaning “bed” (often with a sexual connotation). Unfortunately, this compound word only occurs two times in all of recorded history, and both are in the Bible: 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10. And historians are mostly in agreement that the meaning was not “homosexuals,” but “temple prostitutes.”

            So, having gotten that out of the way, why do you oppose homosexuality?

          • Natalie

            Jesus is God, and the Word of God is inspired by God, (2 Tim 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness), and all the books in the Word of God were written by men under the anointing of the Holy Ghost….so whatever the Lord said about the sin of sexual perversion, Jesus said it. “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

            Therefore, everything that the apostles recorded in the Word is accurate. You would have to ignore that Jesus is not God, and that there is no Holy Ghost to believe that homosexuality is not a sin. You would also have to ignore the consequences of homosexuality that clearly relates with how the Word of God describes homosexual men and women giving into degrading practices. “26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” (Romans 1:26).

            I looked up arsenokoites and its definition is 733 arsenokoítēs (from 730 /árrhēn, “a male” and 2845 /koítē, “a mat, bed”) – properly, a man in bed with another man; a homosexual.

            So, let’s get back to the “judge not” thing..

  • Nameless Cynic

    Funny thing. The baker lost the case, but he didn’t get ordered to a “reeducation camp.” That’s something we call a “lie,” Bob. In fact, “lies” are covered in the Bible – they often call it “bearing false witness.” (I’ll bet you can’t tell how the Bible feels about this whole “lying” thing, can you?)

    According to the ruling, the baker himself has to “provide ‘comprehensive staff training’ regarding public accommodations discrimination” – that’s not going to a “camp,” that’s teaching your staff not to break the law. Training your staff is a pretty standard thing: every business does it.

    (If you want to read the one-page ruling by the Colorado court, the ACLU – I know, that’s hard for you – has provided you a transcript. I’d link to it, but your filters seem to get cranky if I do that.)

    I know this will be a groundbreaking thought for you, but you should probably consider telling the truth once in a while. Start small – use simple descriptions of items, and gradually work yourself up to explaining decisions.

  • Ruthie Rocchio

    wow, this would be hilariously funny if it happened. Let’s send Michelle Bachman, Matt Staver and all of the Fox News pundits there too.

  • Natalie

    ‘Most’ historians do not believe that…not unless they’re trying to find excuses to justify sexual sin like how you’re doing. And arsenokoitai is the same as arsenokoites. It has different spellings, but it is the same definition.

    homosexual- From arrhen and koite; a sodomite — abuser of (that defile) self with mankind. see GREEK arrhen, see GREEK koite/

    Homosexual is not originally in the Word, but the definition speaks for itself…and you really have to be blind to say that the Romans 1 is not talking about homosexuality when he makes it so clear.

    “24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient”.

    Also, no where in the bible is homosexuality praised or given approval.

    Leviticus 18:22- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Proverbs 18:22-22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.

    Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    And last of all…

    9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

    Homosexuality only has one destination with all the sins…hell.

    But nice try on trying to blot out homosexuality as a sin.

    • http://namelesscynic.blogspot.com Nameless Cynic

      And you’re back to quoting the Old Testament. Because apparently, in your world, Jesus died for nothing. Made his great sacrifice on the cross, bringing atonement for all mankind, bringing forth a new covenant with the father.

      Except for Natalie’s world. Where He died for nothing.

      I’m very sorry for you, that you can’t see the grace and glory of Jesus, and His love for ALL mankind.

      • Natalie

        Of course. Homosexuality is a sin, and always will be. The only difference is that there isn’t an immediate death sentence for those who practice the sin.

        This is the grace period…the dispensation of grace period, however, if these people do not repent, Hell awaits-For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).

        He made the atonement for all, true…but you think that homosexuality isn’t a sin. Now show me a scripture where God allows for these people to continue in their sin. Show me one that says that homosexuality is not a sin, mister bible scholar.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!