Friday, January 24, 2014

Cake rights



From Fox:
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights. 
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community. 
Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state. 
Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. 
“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries. 
Cake discrimination. The amorous ladies obviously were unable to obtain cake elsewhere, there being no other bakeries in Oregon. Which explains the pressing state interest in baked-goods rights.
The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.
No violation there. Free speech.
The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. They posted a message vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part: 
“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands….Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.” 
Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. 
Looks like they're cooked.
Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple. 
“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
"Rehabilitate." Officially, in the State of Oregon, Christianity is a disease.

Do you now understand gay rights?  

61 comments:

  1. >>Do you now understand gay rights?<<

    Oh, I understand. Its never been about the privacy of their bedroom.

    All private sector nondiscrimination laws are stupid and unconstitutional. The thirteenth amendment protects me against involuntary servitude. Yes, it is my right to discriminate because I'm the proprietor. It's not an equal protection issue. No one has a right to my labor, so everyone is equally protected.

    What's even more asinine is that the Oregon law protects people from discrimination based on their so-called orientation. But these women were not discriminated against based on their orientation. They weren't even discriminated against because of their behavior. The couple simply didn't want to be part of celebrating something sinful;. They would have made these women cookies or a birthday cake, just not a wedding cake.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the old "oreintation:" bait and switch.

      It's easy to get people to pass antidsicrimination laws based on "orientation." Orientation is nothing more than attraction, and most people would agree that we don't choose who we're attracted to.

      But we do choose who we have sex with, unless of course it's rape. I don't think these two women were raping each other, so that means that they were having consensual sexual relationship. They want to celebrate that relationship with a wedding, and they want to force these two Christians to bake them a cake.

      The Christians don't want to. It really has nothing to do with who they're attracted to, but with who they're sleeping with. And really, it isn't even that. If it were a birthday cake, they'd do it.

      There is absolutely no parallel here between this situation and a baker who simply tells all black people to get out.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. If nondiscrimination laws are so obviously unconstitutional, it should be a peace of cake (heh) to get them thrown out by the higher courts, right?

      They weren't even discriminated against because of their behavior. The couple simply didn't want to be part of celebrating something sinful

      Bullshit. The couple are a bunch of homophobic assholes. Do they also refuse to sell cake to unmarried couples that 'live in sin'? Didn't think so.

      Delete
    3. troi:

      Yea. Unlike the right to free exercise of religion, the right to baked goods is in the Constitution.

      Delete
    4. troi:

      [The couple are a bunch of homophobic assholes. Do they also refuse to sell cake to unmarried couples that 'live in sin'?]

      So why didn't the amorous ladies just say "you're homophobic assholes" and go down the street to another bakery?

      I think I know: because the gay ladies are Christophobic assholes, and they targeted the Christian bakery.

      Delete
    5. Egnor,

      Your "counter arguments" can be applied equally well to an interracial couple who were refused a room in a hotel. Surely they can call the owner a racist and walk down the street to the next hotel. And of course there is no right to a hotel room in the Constitution.

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 24, 2014 at 8:09 AM

      Homosexuals love media attention and litigious lawyers love free marketing. No mystery here.

      And their lawyer can possibly use a little marketing. If I've found the correct lawyer, based on reporting, he's a former cook with a law degree from the University of Oregon School of Law. Top-Law-Schools.com notes that "As may be expected from the school’s ranking... Oregon cannot maintain too high a standard for admission", and they go on to report that the school's Bar passage rate is "weak". As of this morning, this lawyer's business telephone number pops up as a cellphone in Google, and his business website gives no office address. Today's listing on the Oregon Gay and Lesbian Law Association does provide an address, which turns out to be the address of a UPS store.

      I'm obviously speculating here, but I can imagine a scenario in which a known Christian business couple was deliberately targeted by activists and an attorney who needs some exposure.

      In any case, the Doc has observed in many posts that there is a gay and lesbian secular jihad against expression of Christian belief and Christian culture in America. All Christian business owners and employees need to be aware of this situation and be prepared to fight this persecution and, as Christians have done since the time of the catacombs in Rome, stand together in solidarity.

      Delete
    7. Verily, verily, I say onto you.

      If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

      Leviticus 20:13

      Delete
    8. Hoo:

      [Your "counter arguments" can be applied equally well to an interracial couple who were refused a room in a hotel. Surely they can call the owner a racist and walk down the street to the next hotel. And of course there is no right to a hotel room in the Constitution]

      Denial of private accomodations based on race is excreable, but should not be illegal. People have the right to be racists, homophobes, Christophobes, etc. I would support a boycott of businesses that denied service based on race, etc, but it is not a matter in which the law should be involved.

      The proper analogy is not denial based on race anyway, but denial based on behavior.

      Does a black person who owns a bakery have a right to deny a cake to a KKK celebration? Does a Jew who owns a bakery have a right to deny a cake to a Nazi celebration

      Delete
    9. Egnor: The proper analogy is not denial based on race anyway, but denial based on behavior.

      You are trying to use the same maneuver as Joey did. A person does not choose his or her race. But it does not apply to this example. The hypothetical hotel owner is not refusing the room based on the couple's racial identities but rather on their choice to marry each other. If they married persons of the same race, the owner would have no objection. He only object to their choice to marry a person of another race. You are arguing, in full faith, that this ought to be legal.

      Hoo

      Delete
    10. People have the natural right to use their private property as they wish. Bigots, nice people, everyone.

      The bakers in Oregon do not deny baked goods to gay people. They refuse to participate in a gay wedding, which is their right under the Constitution ("Free Exercise of Religion")

      The anti-Christian motives of the gays involved (and your motives) are obvious. There real discrimination here is against the Christians, who were obviously targeted and are being persecuted brutally by exhorbitant fines and destruction of their livelihood.

      It is just hate. Your defense of it is sickening.

      Delete
    11. Another miss, Michael. You can make the exact same argument for an interracial couple. A racist hotel owner does not deny rooms to black people. He only refuses to be instrumental in allowing interracial marriages. He should have a first amendment right to that. Exorbitant fines, blah-blah-blah.

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. You don't understand, Hoo. I have made the exact same argument for interracial couples. People have a natural right to use their private property as they see fit, and that includes bigots and saints.

      What about forcing Jews to bake Nazi cakes?

      Delete
    13. I actually do understand it, Michael. I am making sure others understand how ridiculous your position is. Libertarians can be a hoot sometimes.

      Hoo

      Delete
    14. Hoo:

      How about forcing Jews to bake Nazi cakes?

      How about forcing Jews to bake Nazi cakes?

      How about forcing Jews to bake Nazi cakes?

      Answer my question.

      Delete
    15. Oregon law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

      There is no law that prohibits discrimination against the Nazis.

      Try again.

      Hoo

      Delete
    16. How about forcing gays to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church-- with "God Hates Fags" written in the frosting?

      Delete
    17. I suggest that you try just that, Mike. You don't even need the Westboro Baptist Church. Go yourself to your nearest bakery*, order a cake with "God hates fags," and see what happens.

      *Its owners need not even be gay.

      Hoo

      Delete
    18. Did the Christian of Westboro Baptist Church chose to be bigots, or were they born that way?

      -KW

      Delete
    19. >>If nondiscrimination laws are so obviously unconstitutional, it should be a peace of cake (heh) to get them thrown out by the higher courts, right?<<

      If the judges give a crap about the Constitution. But not all judges do.

      >>Bullshit. The couple are a bunch of homophobic assholes. <<

      Homophobic is such an ill-defined term, I don't know what it means. I know what you think it means, but that's of no help to me. Fortunately, it doesn't matter one iota. So-called homophobic bigots have the same first and thirteenth amendments rights as every one else. The lesbians don't have a right to a cake or to the Kleins' labor. The lesbians ought to lose this one, but of course they didn't because the state of Oregon doesn't give a crap that the Kleins' rights are being gang-raped. Oregon beaurecrats are among the gang-rapists in this story.

      >> Do they also refuse to sell cake to unmarried couples that 'live in sin'? Didn't think so.<<

      I don't know and neither do you. I'd hate to validate your comparison by addressing it, but I think it merits mentioning that the bakery could reject their business for exactly that reason and the unmarried cohabitating couple would have no recourse. The horrors! It kind of makes you wonder why homosexuals are entitled to special treatment.

      In a truly free society, I should be able to refuse your business for any reason I desire, and I shouldn't have to justify it to the government. The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution guarantees protection from involuntary servitude, which is exactly what this is.

      JQ

      Delete
    20. JQ:

      In a truly free society, I should be able to refuse your business for any reason I desire, and I shouldn't have to justify it to the government. The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution guarantees protection from involuntary servitude, which is exactly what this is.

      The bakers are free to shut down their business and not sell a cake to the gay couple. When you start a public business you should know the legal rules of the game. In this case, the pertinent rule is that you can't deny customers based on their sexual preference. If you don't like that rule, don't start a public bakery. You could start a bakery club where gays are not allowed - perfectly legal.

      Delete
    21. For starters, they weren't denied service because of their sexual preference. But your excuse--that they could simply go out of business--is so predictable. It assumes that people who go into business for themselves must surrender their rights as a condition.

      It's not a public business either. It's a private business. Do you understand what private means?

      Your idea of a "free society" is sick.

      The Torch

      Delete
    22. "The anti-Christian motives of the gays involved (and your motives) are obvious. There real discrimination here is against the Christians, who were obviously targeted and are being persecuted brutally by exhorbitant fines and destruction of their livelihood."

      You ain't just whistlin' dixie. You hit that one squarely on the head, doctor.

      The Torch

      Delete
    23. Torch:

      It's not a public business either. It's a private business. Do you understand what private means?

      Yes, it's a private business but a public accommodation. According to the local law you can't deny business based on the customers' sexual orientation. If that's contrary to you constitution, why hasn't it been challenged successfully? The SCOTUS is dominated by conservative Catholics, after all.

      Delete
    24. The term public accommodation was invented exactly for the purpose of denying business owners their rights as the proprietors of their establishments. Again, you're merely repeating the lie that people lose their rights when they open a business. If you want to keep your rights, you can't go into business for yourself. Is that what you mean?

      "According to the local law you can't deny business based on the customers' sexual orientation."

      They weren't denied because of their orientation and local laws don't trump the constitution.

      "If that's contrary to you constitution, why hasn't it been challenged successfully? The SCOTUS is dominated by conservative Catholics, after all."

      The court is dominated by conservative Catholics? BWWAAAAAAAAA! No, it isn't. Also, no such case has ever reached the Supreme Court. Plenty of judges put their own personal policy preferences above the Constitution which they have sworn to protect and uphold.

      The Torch

      Delete
    25. Again, you're merely repeating the lie that people lose their rights when they open a business. If you want to keep your rights, you can't go into business for yourself. Is that what you mean?

      No. It's just your opinion that people lose their rights when they open a business. Clearly it's not as simple and straightforward as you make it out to be, or it would have been successfully challenged by now. Anyway, IANAL, nor a citizen of the USA, so all I can say is that it seems right to me that potential customers not be denied based on their sexual preferences.

      Delete
    26. Your conclusion must be that if the SCOTUS hasn't knocked it down, it must be constitutional. That's ridiculuous, for two reasons. The SCOTUS sometimes hands down some pretty egregious decisions and, more importantly, they have never heard a case similar to this one.

      "Anyway, IANAL, nor a citizen of the USA, so all I can say is that it seems right to me that potential customers not be denied based on their sexual preferences."

      Great. And when you own a bakery you can bake lesbian wedding cakes till your heart's content. But forcing these people to do it is a violation of their constitutional rights, which remain intact even after going into business for themselves. Or at least they should.

      What you're doing here is legislating your morality then shoving it down someone else's throat. Butt out.

      The Torch

      Delete
  2. "The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law..."

    What the dweeb is trying to say here is that it would be within their rights to discriminate if they were a religious instution but, since they are not, they have overstepped their bounds. This is a key point. What he's saying is that discrimination is a right guaranteed under the First Amendment, it just doesn't belong to mere citizens, only to religious institutions.

    Read the Constitution and tell me where it says that.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's chilling to think that the first amendment to the Constitution applies only to churches. I've noticed that interpretation creeping in since Obama took office.

      It doesn't apply only to churches. It applies to citizens. The Kleins are citizens and they have rights. They don't forgoe those rights when they go into business for themselves.

      JQ

      Delete
  3. homosexual crybabies always get their way.

    naidoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they do. And they still think they're oppressed minority. Oppressive minority is more like it.

      JQ

      Delete
  4. This post and the comments are facetious crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean that it's not true that Christians are being persecuted in Oregon?

      Delete
    2. These business owners aren't persecuted because they are Christians. They are persecuted because they violate a state law.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. At least Hoo admits that Christians are being persecuted.

      Your argument is super-lame, Hoo. I could just as easily say that Martin Luther King and his fellow black Southerners weren't arrested for sitting at segregated lunch counters but because they violated a state law.

      When a law is unjust and unconstitutional, then its enforcement amounts to persecution. In the case of King, the state law was the instrument of his persecution. Same here with the Kleins.

      You don't have a right to someone else's labor. They can sell it you voluntarily, but you are overstepping your bounds when you run crying to the government and ask them to forcibly extract it from them.

      JQ

      Delete
  5. Homosexuality....it must be pain in the ass!

    Croatia dealt with them the old fashion democratic way (remember democracy?). Let the citizens vote!


    Sayonara gays

    BTW many of the ladies couples there look good, exactly how we like to imagine, yes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you follow Eugen's link, you will see a photo of a Croatian demonstrator holding up a sign "Homosexuality isn't a choice, it is hate."

      I am sure Eugen approves of this message.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Hoo

      person with the sign is in pro gay area, protected by riot police. Sign is saying that "hate (against gays) is choice" not homosexuality.
      Most people don't hate them. It would be polite if they carry on their business quietly i.e. in privacy. That's all.

      Delete
    3. I suppose I misread the sign. It says "Homosexuality isn't a choice, but hate is [a choice]." Apologies.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Homosexuality is absolutely a choice. We choose who we sleep with. No?

      JQ

      Delete
    5. Homosexuality is absolutely a choice. We choose who we sleep with. No?

      No. In big parts of the world marriages are arranged. No choice involved.

      But of course you do realize that sexual attraction is an innate tendency. Almost nobody chooses to be attracted to whatever sex they are attracted to. Did you make a conscious decision to prefer the ladies (assuming you are)?

      Delete
    6. Sex without choice is called rape. But this isn't rape, it's volitional behavior.

      Again, you're blurring the line between orientation and behavior. Someone could have a same-sex orientation and be a virgin. He may be "gay" but he's not a homosexual.

      This law protects people against "discrimination" based on orientation only. Nothing more. These bakers aren't refusing their services on the grounds of "orientation."

      Again, you seem not to see any difference between orientation and conduct when the subject is homosexuals. Why not be consistent then and apply the same principle to pedophiles? Being a pedophile is obviously not a choice. If it were, who would choose it? It's innate.

      The Torch

      Delete
    7. Again, you're blurring the line between orientation and behavior. Someone could have a same-sex orientation and be a virgin. He may be "gay" but he's not a homosexual.

      So you're a homosexual as soon as you touch the genitals of a same-sex person, but before that you're just gay. I see.

      These bakers aren't refusing their services on the grounds of "orientation."

      No? Then on what grounds?

      Being a pedophile is obviously not a choice. If it were, who would choose it? It's innate.

      Of course it is. What's your point?

      Delete
  6. Christians aren’t being “persecuted” by Oregon, bigots are. Because most anti-gay bigots are Christian or Muslim I’m sure it feels like religious persecution to the bigots, but the law stands regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pay very close attention to this case. The next time someone tells you that homosexuals will never sue your church for not performing their marriage because that could never happen in America, show them this.

    If a mere statute can abridge the first amendment rights of this couple then nothing is safe. All that has to be done is to pass a law requiring all churches to recognize same-sex marriages. The first amendment, which hasn't protected the Kleins, won't protect your local house of worship either.

    It should, of course. A constitutional amendement does not yield for a mere state law. But the law is only as good as those who are enforcing it.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  8. JQ, I'm coming around to your way of thinking. It's something I was pondering the other day while I was working out at Curves, the gym for women-only. It occurred to me that Curves has a discriminatory membership policy and I don't see anything wrong with it.

    I'm reevaluating my previous support for anti-discrimination laws.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason Curves exists is because many women feel uncomfortable working out in an environment with men who may leer at their bodies. Logically, lesbians should also be excluded. You might say that not all lesbians will leer, but of course not all hetero males would leer either. If we want to be consistent and logical, Curves should exclude both. But Curves doesn't do that because society thinks discrimination is just fine when it's men who are being excluded. They aren't a designated victim group. Lesbians are though. Don't ask me why women who perform cunnlingus on other women are somehow a special set of people entitled to special protections, but they are. Make no mistake about it, we're talking about SPECIAL protection here, not equal protection.

      The Torch

      Delete
  9. As with atheists and the God haters who post here (and anywhere they suspect honest discussion my be occurring) one revelation of this cake baking affair is obvious but unstated.

    The sodomites and the lesbians know that they are wrong. Though many are obviously driven functionally insane by their surrender to their condition and choice of behavior; even they remain aware that they are wrong. hence the fanaticism and hatred, death threats to children cited above etc etc

    They hate and fear The Truth and they are correct to do so; given that they have decided never to repent.
    They despise the dignity and peace that Christians know and they are driven to destroy it.
    Though they seem absurd it would certainly not be the first time that Evil crept closer by appearing risible.

    The 'gay rights' agenda = the promotion of sexual perversion in the public sphere; this can only be a spiritual battle as the number of homosexuals is tiny. Yet the 'gay rights' agenda dwarfs almost any other obsession of the Progressives. Everyone reading this knows that pedophilia is the next front as abortion was the last.

    The asymmetrical nature of this spiritual battle is not always easy to logically demonstrate when particulars are expressed down here in The World but it can be done.

    For example, our host's question about Nazis and Jewish people was repeatedly ignored. I would like to answer the question this way.

    Does anyone think that a Jewish person would ask a Nazi bakery owner to bake their wedding cake?
    Go to court to force them?

    Courage,The Truth is on our side.

    John Richardson



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point, John. The agenda here is obvious, and malignant, and has noting whatsoever to do with "rights".

      Delete
    2. You agree with this lunatic, Egnor? Specifically

      The sodomites and the lesbians know that they are wrong. Though many are obviously driven functionally insane by their surrender to their condition and choice of behavior; even they remain aware that they are wrong. hence the fanaticism and hatred, death threats to children cited above etc etc

      If you do agree with this, tell us on what evidence please.

      Delete
  10. This is the sort of crazy result that happens when society accepts the notion that buttfucking is equivalent to skin color. I first heard that argument probably two decades ago and I thought it was absolutely outlandish. So did everyone else. But as time has gone on, a new generation has grown up that has been taught exactly that since kindergarten and so it seems axiomatic to them that buttfucking is kind of like race.

    There's no similarity there. It's a behavior and a perverse one at that. It's not who you are. Homosexuals could stop and plenty have.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Torch:

      This is the sort of crazy result that happens when society accepts the notion that buttfucking is equivalent to skin color.

      The discussion concerns a lesbian couple. It's pretty clear that you're obsessed with butt fucking, but it probably doesn't apply in this case. Anyway, who says that anal sex is equivalent to skin color?

      Delete
    2. "The discussion concerns a lesbian couple."

      No shit, Sherlock.

      "It's pretty clear that you're obsessed with butt fucking, but it probably doesn't apply in this case."

      I think they might be slightly more obsessed than I am. You're awfully obsessed with priests getting hummers from altar boys, I've noticed. A fantasy of yours, perhaps?

      "Anyway, who says that anal sex is equivalent to skin color?"

      Absolutely everyone who defends ludicrous, unconstitutional laws like this one. If I have to hear one more whiny homosexual pretend that this he's just Rosa Parks, I'm going to scream. Sexual behavior is nothing at all like race. The comparison is laughable.

      The Torch

      Delete
    3. If I have to hear one more whiny homosexual pretend that this he's just Rosa Parks, I'm going to scream. Sexual behavior is nothing at all like race. The comparison is laughable.

      You're going to scream? That's so gay.

      Sexual behavior is, of course, very much like skin color in the sense that you can't help what your skin color is (unless you're Michael Jackson), nor can you help what sex you prefer to have sex with.

      Delete
    4. In that case, being a child molester is kind of like being black. And refusing to cater a NAMBLA conference is kind of like not serving blacks at your diner.

      I noticed that you don't deny fellatio fantasies with altar boys.

      The Torch

      Delete
    5. I noticed that you don't deny fellatio fantasies with altar boys.

      Why would I deny that? You haven't denied torture fantasies with octogenarian nuns.

      Delete
    6. Troy, you idiot. Skin color is innate. Behavior is chosen. There is no equivalence.

      Delete
  11. My uncle's gay and even he thinks these laws are nuts. He thinks they make gays look pushy. I don't want to tell him this but when the homosexual community supports them, they don't look pushy, they are pushy.

    I like TRISH's example of Curves. If businesses have to have a come one, come all policy, why does Curves get a pass? I guess discrimination is sometimes okay? No one ever says that Curves is kind of like racist restaurant owners because that would be just silly, but no more silly than saying the same thing about Aaron and Mellissa Klein.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  12. Patriots and Christians and anyone who opposes the moral status of homosexuality have a great case here to make our case.
    I am Canadian but you Yanks could do well with this.
    This means they are saying people can not hold the opinion and contempt for homosexual unions by merely not participating.
    A bakery is a special case where a baker is in contact with public doings.
    What if they refused to make a cake for the KKK or a political party?
    Would the left demand they make a cake?
    This shows the gay/liberal agenda.
    they are forcing people to a moral consent and so complicity with what one finds immoral on any level.
    They are officially banning the opposition to gay marriage or whatever.
    OKAY so its about rights.
    Insist a man has the right to decide what is right and wrong and insist homosexuality is wrong and no one is to tell you its right.
    Forcing one to comply is forcing one against ones conscience.
    Freedom of conscience is a cornerstone of America.
    It trumps any claim of gay rights to your compliance.They are causing the trouble as they could go elsewhere.
    The gov't is forcing moral complicity on gay things.
    its impossible for such a issue to be neutral in real society.
    There will be more like this.
    Fight them and welcome this case.
    It cuts to the heart of freedom and morality and justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ....it cuts to the tart of freedom and democracy and.....

      Delete
  13. 'Gay' Marriage isn't just wrong. It is impossible. It does not and cannot exist.

    ReplyDelete