Turning the Tables on Same-Sex Marriage? Not with THIS Argument.

Turning the Tables on Same-Sex Marriage? Not with THIS Argument. December 27, 2018

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided by the Supreme Court last summer in favor of the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, but it was a narrow ruling that set little or no precedent. It remains an open question how far “My religion demands that I not serve your kind” can go.

Before that case was decided, a Christian blogger wanted to demonstrate the hypocrisy of gay couples asking Christian bakers for wedding cakes. So it’s not okay for Christian bakers to refuse? Let’s see how gay bakers like it when the tables are turned!

The Freedom Outpost blogger asked thirteen gay or pro-gay bakers for a cake that said, “Gay Marriage is Wrong.” Each baker turned him down.

If anyone who objects [says] our request for the cake was hateful, this is exactly the type of thing the homosexual activists do to Christian bakeries when they use the state to coerce them to make a cake with an explicitly pro homosexual slogan on it. Well, to turn it against them, we asked for an explicitly anti-homosexual marriage cake.

Blatant hypocrisy, right?

This inept experiment fails since the two positions aren’t symmetrical. The gay couple in the 2012 Colorado case simply wanted a wedding cake, not an anti-Christian or anti-conservative statement or even a political statement of any kind. It’s just a wedding cake—a symbol of love, remember? If someone is determined to take offense at that or see the wedding not as a loving couple wanting to get married but a deliberate poke in the eye of their lord and savior . . . well, I guess there’s not much you can do about that. But an objective observer would not see the imagined crime.

(Going forward, I’ll sometimes use conservative/liberal as synonyms for the clumsier phrases “same-sex marriage opponent/proponent.” This may bring to mind politics, but that’s fine since politics seems to be at least as much of a driving force as Christianity.)

The “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cake was just hate speech. You’re welcome to say that, but you’re not entitled to demand someone else to do so. You want a symmetric experiment? Ask a gay baker to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple with the familiar bride/groom cake topper. If the baker demands that you take your business elsewhere because they don’t serve “your kind,” then you’ve got a case.

I’m sure that Freedom Outpost knew that that request wouldn’t cause any sparks, which is why they didn’t try an honest symmetric experiment but opted instead for a groundless grandstanding opportunity.

Tom Gilson of the Thinking Christian blog supported this experiment:

Every gay marriage wedding cake, no matter how it’s decorated, says the man-woman-only view of marriage is wrong; but it takes special effort to make a man and woman’s wedding cake communicate that gay marriage is wrong.

First, the cake does have a point to make, but “the man/woman-only view is wrong” is not it. How hateful do you have to be to take a couple’s celebration of their special day and insist that the purpose is actually just to be mean to you?

If you enjoy being cantankerous, you could see the same kind of message in a man/woman wedding cake. Is this cake a deliberate jab at the couples who couldn’t afford a wedding this nice? Or the couples who only bought a small cake because they don’t have as many friends? Or the people whose potential mate turned them down?

Who would imagine any of those messages as subtext in a wedding cake? Who would think that that is a primary message of the wedding? If you’re thin-skinned, see this as a winner-take-all political game, and are determined to be offended, then you might see every gay wedding cake as a personal affront, but that’s your problem.

Onto the second point, that it’s hard to make the statement “gay marriage is wrong” with an ordinary wedding cake. That’s right, and that’s why the experiment was irredeemably flawed. A symmetric cake doesn’t actually make an objectively offensive message.

Is it always politics?

There’s an obvious lesson here—that a truly symmetric cake would actually send a loving message, so the objection to anti-discrimination laws was motivated by politics rather than logic—but that’s not where Thinking Christian wants to go with this. The post takes the conservative, anti-same-sex marriage position as a given and explores the argument from a strategic standpoint. How can conservatives make their message more palatable?

He summarizes the two positions this way:

Natural marriage proponents are defending an institution and standing in the way of gay couples’ desire to marry. [They] seek to disrupt two real people’s desires, hopes, and felt needs.

Same-sex “marriage” proponents are attacking an institution and defending couples’ desires to marry. [They] seek to disrupt the historic institution of marriage.

(It’s fun how he adds scare quotes to same-sex “marriage.” My position has been insulted even before he gets started!)

There’s a big difference between attacking marriage and seeking to expand it. And I presume by “disrupt the historic institution of marriage,” this is a claim that marriage is unchanging. It’s not and has been dramatically changed just in my own lifetime (more on that later).

I do understand his predicament as he lays it out. He must be the hard-ass, burdened with the unpalatable message. He’s attacking real people, while his opponents are attacking an institution. (That’s how he sees it, anyway. In fact it’s even more difficult since his opponents are attacking just one calcified interpretation of the institution. Making the institution of marriage open to more people has historically been on the right side of history.)

Then we get the predictable, tired arguments in favor of the conservative position: marriage is important for children (actually, healthy families are important to children), same-sex marriage is morally wrong (you’re free to avoid same-sex marriage if you don’t like it, but you’re not free to put your supernatural conclusions into laws), and so on.

And I must respond to his use of the phrase “natural marriage.” Marriage is not natural; it’s a manmade institution, and it can be defined any way that society decides. What he’s confusing with marriage is sex. Sex is natural, and marriage is not. Marriage wasn’t even a Christian sacrament until 1215.

Gilson wrings his hand at his difficulty.

Gay “marriage” doesn’t have to be right to win rhetorically. . . .

We ask gay bakers to make cakes for us that express our position, just as gays have asked some of us to [bake] cakes that express their position. Their request comes across as rhetorically natural, ours is clumsy and awkward.

You’re determined to miss the point. No, your request comes across not as awkward but as hateful because your game is not symmetric. This ridiculous demand to make a “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cake is as relevant to the issue as demanding a Ku Klux Klan cake. Neither is the symmetric version of a cake for a gay wedding.

Continue to part 2 for a critique of six steps the author recommends to help conservatives strengthen their rhetorical position.

Related post: 20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted

To call homosexuality [acceptable]
as long it doesn’t include sex
is like the sound of one hand clapping.
— commenter Y. A. Warren

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/26/15.)

Image credit: Arallyn!, flickr, CC

.

"Visibility is good for the word. It may also be a little bad if it ..."

Stalin Was a Mass Murderer (And ..."
"Atheist has fewer letters. Better for the environment.Mike, atheist"

Stalin Was a Mass Murderer (And ..."
"Remember that it was in the 1770s."

Stalin Was a Mass Murderer (And ..."
"I have arguments, I don't offer them to you.I offer them to more honest people."

Is Life Absurd Without God? A ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • CanuckAmuck
    • TheBookOfDavid

      False equivalence. You are responding to the cake debate using a pie chart.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        ^^^^ISWYDT

        LOL

  • Lex Lata

    Yeah, an apples-to-apples, symmetrical experiment would involve going to an LGBT (or LGBT-friendly) baker and ordering a cake for a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Baptist, etc. wedding. If a baker refused to fill the order because of the happy couple’s religious beliefs, then you’d have something more analogous to the Masterpiece Cakeshop situation. And I can say with more than a little confidence that such a baker would be violating applicable state and federal civil rights laws.

    • They’re happy that “religion” is a protected class. Too bad they aren’t able to accept when other groups are protected as well.

  • By “natural” marriage, he’s invoking a specific idea. It’s called natural law theory, and claims there are specific ends for things which one must not go against. This is a form of teleology. However, this is not a view even all theists hold. Few atheists hold it at all. So it begs the question without being grounded. I think it would be an idea Bob might want to examine at some point though, given how commonly it’s used against homosexuality etc.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      They really should call it “Icky Law” or something to that effect, because homosexuality is quite clearly “natural”.

      • There is a different meaning to them for “natural”. It’s one of those words like that.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Yeah, they definitely equivocate with that term, and not just on this topic. They do the same thing when accusing others of having a “naturalistic bias.”

        • Yes, “naturalism” can be a problematic term too. Properly defined though, I think that a naturalistic bias can be perfectly rational.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Sure, but the “properly defined” versions don’t resemble the theistic usages.

        • Often yes, though even if a definition were agreed upon they would still reject naturalism, obviously. Yet they themselves show skepticism toward claims from other faiths.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          “Often” isn’t the right word. “Supernatural” is so poorly constructed that theists must *always* misuse “natural” in these discussions. A clear, workable definition of “supernatural” is contrary to the purpose of the term.

          As a test, the next time you get into a discussion with a believer, ask them how we can tell whether a new discovery is supernatural or merely a previously unknown natural. You will never get a straight answer to this query. They may say you know it’s supernatural if it’s not natural, but they won’t then be able to spell out what makes something natural.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          Or ask them to define “supernatural” and they’ll describe literally “nothing”. lol

        • Mostly the definition I’ve heard is something “beyond” Nature, usually God or things directly from him (like a miracle) though sometimes they also include beings such as angels or demons in that category. However, a naturalist I’ve read defines it as anything that would be irreducibly mental, which includes magic and psychic abilities.

          The great difficulty in practice here would be distinguishing them yes. If you go by the definition above, how do we tell a miracle from magic? That seems nearly impossible.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Mostly the definition I’ve heard is something “beyond” Nature

          This is exactly what I’m talking about. “Beyond” is just a more visceral way of saying “other than”: that which isn’t natural is supernatural. This definition is useless without further detail as to what characteristics deem something as “natural”… and it’s these very details that theists withhold.

          Furthermore, the idea of something being “beyond” nature in this context is a misapplication of terms. Natural/unnatural is useful when contrasting man-made vs. not man-made. Or perhaps agency and the absence of agency. But “natural” is different in the philosophical sense, it’s really just, “how the universe appears to behave”. Methodological naturalism isn’t the exclusion of stuff in the supernatural bucket, it’s recognition that we can only explore that which has a measurable influence. Hypotheses that leave no testable trace – including countless “natural” ones – are necessarily, albeit provisionally, dismissed.

          If and when stuff that is currently labeled “supernatural” is demonstrable, it will be incorporated into our understanding of how reality works, making it no less “natural” than oceans, trees and birds. “Supernatural”, as theists use it, is nothing more than an argument from ignorance in word form.

        • In many cases yes, it is vacuous. Some though I’d say will agree with the idea that “natural” in this sense means whatever can be reduced to the physical (space-time, matter/energy) while the supernatural can’t.

          This isn’t methodical naturalism though, but ontological naturalism, a different idea.

          Well that again depends on the definition. For the one I’ve used above, it wouldn’t be natural.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          The issue remains the same whether we are discussing methodology or ontology. I don’t even see the distinction here as having theistic utility because the problem presents itself yet again…. if reality contains non-physical stuff and that non-physical stuff can be demonstrated, then our understanding of reality will expand to accommodate this new awareness. Ergo, it is no less natural than birds or bees or trees.

          If someone wants to slap lahels are different parts of external reality, calling some stuff “natural” and other stuff not, be my guest. But this is a mere linguistic distinction, not an ontological one. What we now call “natural” encapsulates both.

        • Sure, it would become part of our understanding. This might not be called natural though.

          I think that the feeling here is it would be very different from physical “stuff”, enough so that another label is appropriate. As for what we label natural at the moment, I don’t think it always applies. That again depends on the definition. If you call natural simply all that exists, of course it would. That’s a tautology though.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          If you call natural simply all that exists, of course it would. That’s a tautology though.

          It acts like a tautology, but there is a distinction between, “how external reality appears to behave” and “all that exists”.

          I think that the feeling here is it would be very different from physical “stuff”, enough so that another label is appropriate.

          Sure, and if I haven’t been clear about it, I applaud making “supernatural” a legitimate label. But once we’ve done so, we must bring the distinction back into the phrase “naturalistic bias”. What this would now mean is that, despite demonstrable effect, predictive power and an a describable mechanism, scientists would refuse to accept a hypothesis merely because it is not material. This is silly.

          No, the reason immaterial hypotheses are rejected now is because they provide none of these.

          Amusingly, once we legitimize the natural/supernatural divide, it will open space for an overarching term that describes how all reality seems to behave. And theists can then pretend we’re excluding some “beyond” that term by slapping a “super” in front of it.

        • justanotheratheist2 I agree

        • What is the distinction?

          If it’s a tautology, the term “natural” is also vacuous.

          That would only hold assuming there were solid evidence for the supernatural, however defined. Even then, such occurrences might be less common, so scientists would be justified in looking to natural explanations first.

          I don’t see how this follows.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          If it’s a tautology, the term “natural” is also vacuous.

          Happy new year, Michael. We must be talking past each other because this is the problem I’ve been describing.

          Natural as “odd” or “not man-made” have… ahem… natural counterpoints. But this is not the case when you direct the term toward reality itself. Sure, the “odd” usage could be applied, but in that case rare events would be unnatural and common ones would be natural. This is clearly not what people mean in this instance. Instead, natural most often means, “the way reality appears to behave”. (What word do you use for this if not “natural”?)

          Sure, this definition is ever-expanding and all encompassing, but this not a problem, nor does it diminish the term’s utility. It just means attempts to discuss “beyond” it are self-contradictory.

          Now, as I’ve agreed all along, there are ways to manufacture a counterpoint. Color solid lines around certain characteristics, call those natural and give other qualities a different label. This increases practicality, but it is somewhat arbitrary. For instance, the unintuitive quantum realm could easily have been called non-natural with the classical as its natural counterpart.

          Notice how absurd the idea of a “naturalistic bias” is with this labeling. How could there even be a bias between two disparate parts of external reality with their own mechanisms and methods of detection/testing?

          Well, if the “supernatural” (however it’s defined) is ever demonstrated, it will be as real as the quantum is now. And the distinction between natural/supernatural will be no more fundamental than the divide is between classical/quantum. Furthermore, “natural” having more precedent will have no bearing because we humans are adept at isolating the variables in question. Natural things will be tested their way, supernatural things their way and the intersection will be a muddled mess until the mathematics of each can be unified. In other words, exactly how quantum/classical is now with no scientists on either side questioning whether the other was really real or not.

          This is why the bias you describe is inapt. Once the supernatural has its own analog to the double slit experiment or particle accelerators, no one would reject a more parsimonious supernatural explanation due to rarity alone. Instead, a bias might look like Einstein’s initial difficulty with the quantum’s fundamental indeterminacy.

          Depending on usage, we end up with two options:

          1. “Natural” is tautological and attempts to speak of a “beyond” are nonsensical.

          2. Natural/supernatural are adequately distinguished, in which case the latter bares little resemblance to what theists are trying to get across, including supposed biases that impede acceptance. To the contrary, properly considered, this usage highlights all the reasons why supernatural is impotent as a legitimate explanation.

          This is why asking what qualities are “natural” is so important… and why you’ll rarely get a real answer. Apologists aren’t interested in doing the necessary legwork to legitimize “supernatural”, they just want to play to intuition that “natural” always implies an opposite.

          Hopefully this makes more sense. And sorry for how long this comment ended up being.

        • Happy New Year. Yes, it seems we were talking past each other. My objection previously was that defining “natural” as “that which exists” doesn’t tell us much. It appears you would agree with this though, so it’s not an issue of circularity then if a more precise definition is made. From what I can tell, we mostly agree. I’d be the first to agree “supernatural” also isn’t very clear most of the time. Some definitions simply call it “anything unexplained by science” for instance, which boils down ignorance.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          My objection previously was that defining “natural” as “that which exists” doesn’t tell us much.

          Again, there is a distinction between “that which exists” and “the way reality appears to behave” that cannot be glossed over. It also should be pointed out that this definition is still perfectly useful, the fault lies in those who are trying to stretch it into something it isn’t. But there is no doubt that it ends up being circular when misapplied.

          Some definitions simply call it “anything unexplained by science” for instance, which boils down ignorance.

          What theists don’t seem to grasp is that, when rejecting this ignorance based usage, scientists are rejecting at least as many ostensibly “natural” hypotheses as they do supernatural.

          Lastly, hopefully it is clear why even more “legitimate” definitions of supernatural don’t aid theistic arguments. They’re equivocating while ignoring that neither usage is independently supportive.

          Thanks for the discussion.

        • Well yes, that distinction could be made. However, if you don’t go further into what qualifies as “natural” they you’re not really saying much.

          That’s true, which is one reason why that definition is useless.

          No, they don’t themselves make arguments stronger, but it clarifies what is being argued about.

          You’re welcome, and thanks.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          That’s true, which is one reason why that definition is useless.

          Sorry to beat this dead horse, but “useless” is much too strong. “The way reality appears to behave” has plenty of utility in other contexts – it must, given how common that usage is – it just doesn’t offer insight about one particular thing.

          Most importantly, it isn’t trying to convey that particular piece of information. Applying it in that manner is user error, not a problem with the term or definition. But that’s exactly what apologists do.

          Hopefully this closes the book on this subject. Thanks for giving me the chance to elucidate some of these ideas.

        • I guess I’m not sure how it conveys that either, so thus “useless”. Don’t get me wrong-I’m not trying to beat up on you here. It’s just a lot of these words don’t have clear definitions, or at least aren’t commonly defined. So that’s problematic.

          I’m always happy to help in elucidation. That was my aim too here.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          I think we found common ground. The common usage of “natural”, when applied to reality, is somewhat circular and offers no ontological insight. Ergo, any talk of “beyond” it is vacuous unless accompanied by an improved definition and clear delineation between the two.

          Are we on the same page here?

        • I think so yes. Before we can talk of “natural” or any supposed “supernatural” both terms need clear definitions.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Great, let’s see if we can go 2-for-2. Do you consider my classical/quantum analogy apt? If not, why not?

          If so, do you agree that it fundamentally changes any potential biases at play? That, given a well defined and demonstrated “supernatural”, a naturalistic bias would bare little resemblance to what theists accuse non-believers of having now?

        • I’m afraid I don’t remember that now.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Lol! No worries, it’s been a winding path.

          I made the comparison between a well supported “supernatural” and the quantum realm. How no one in their right mind would accuse a scientist of having a “classical bias” that causes then to reject quantum hypotheses.

          You see, that’s the bee in my bonnet, “naturalistic bias”. The idea that dismissing the “supernatural” is mere presupposition. This is bullshit. If you do a quick scan through some of my prior comments with that in mind, it will probably make a lot more sense

        • Well yes I do agree with that.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Like their different meaning of “love”?

        • I’m not familiar with that, but it could be.

    • If it’s so natural, one wonders why it took until the 1200s for marriage to come under the church’s purview as a sacrament.

      • They just say they’re recognizing what God always wanted. As to why they didn’t make it a sacrament before, apparently this was part of a struggle with “heretics” who sometimes forbid marriage to their members (Cathars and Waldensians). The Catholics decided to make it one as part of the requirements for ex-members of these sects joining the Church again.

        • they’re recognizing what God always wanted.

          What Would Jesus Do? Apparently not say a lot about the rules for marriage, because he didn’t.

        • True, but he did say one man, one woman (plus no divorce, except if the wife commits adultery). Regardless, they insist this that this is something we can figure out through reason alone. That was apparently lost on the millions who found no irrationality in all other marriage forms that have existed.

  • Jim Jones

    Biblical marriage: One man and as many wives, concubines and sex slaves (of either sex) as he could afford.

    • Greg G.

      Don’t forget cousins and sisters. Abraham married his half-sister. Esau married his cousin while his brother, Jacob, married a pair of sisters who were also their cousins.

      • And one assumes that Cain did it with his sisters (or his mother, Eve).

    • TheBookOfDavid

      Biblical marriage: a detestable practice, best avoided entirely, except for people of weak self discipline (1 Corinthians 7:7-9).

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        That sounds almost Ambrose Bierce!

        🙂

        • TheBookOfDavid

          I am not so highbrow, just a humble soul willing to provide the occasional Sunday school lesson to Christians too busy for bible reading.

      • “Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in Hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on Earth and you should save it for someone you love.” — Butch Hancock

    • I got into an argument with a Christian about the Bible’s support for polygamy. Her argument was that each of a man’s many marriages are just one man + one woman.

      How she thought that was a victory for her side I can’t imagine.

      • Jim Jones

        They literally cannot and have not ever thought. To me, they’re like blind people who have never seen.

        “Indeed it may be said with some confidence that the average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. There are moments when his cogitations are relatively more respectable than usual, but even at their climaxes they never reach anything properly describable as the level of serious thought. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of clichés. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over eighty per cent. of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before and by thousands.”

        ― H.L. Mencken, Minority Report

      • I Came To Bring The Paine

        So was she pro-polygamy then?

        • In effect, I suppose, but her stated position was that the Bible didn’t support polygamy. I guess she hoped to define it away somehow.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    This is similar to a discussion I had on another forum, with the particulars changed to Nazis, Jewish bakers and a Swastika cake. The attempt here was not to justify religious bigotry, merely to show how discrimination laws are inherently problematic.

    What this person couldn’t grasp was that Swastika cakes are not on the menu of services. Sure, we can presume a baker is capable of creating one, but capability alone does not oblige action even under the strictest discrimination laws. Only if the Nazi is denied a menu item or Swastikas are standard decoration does the example work.

    • Also, being a Nazi is not a protected class.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        True, but this was one of the issues the other party had. Who decides what is protected? On what grounds? These are questions I sympathize with, but his argument fails nonetheless.

        • John Pieret

          Who decides what is protected?

          The law does. It usually involves older notions of invidious discrimination … race, religion, country of origin, sex … but a few more enlightened places have included sexual orientation and gender identity. A number of courts, following Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), which held that discrimination against a woman because she didn’t conform to “traditional” norms of how women should dress and act was “sex discrimination,” have held that discrimination against transgender men and women because they weren’t conforming to “traditional” norms of how women and men should dress and act, is also “sex discrimination.” Fewer courts have decided that discrimination against gays and lesbians is also “sex discrimination” because how, after all, can you distinguish between them and straight people other than by who they are having sex with?

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          I know, the question was more rhetorical in nature. It may be helpful to know that the other person is a die-hard Libertarian.

        • The state and federal governments decide who is protected.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Read my response below.

        • Yep, you covered it nicely.

      • lady_black

        We don’t even need to delve into that, because if it’s not on the menu, you can’t order it. If it IS on the menu, you can order it. In the case of a wedding cake, there is no requirement that you even be getting married.

    • Good example. If a baker sells custom decorated cakes, my request for a Nazi cake would have him do something he doesn’t usually do, and the Masterpiece Cakeshop argument would hold apply. But if a baker sells wedding cakes, my request for a cake for a gay wedding would have him do nothing different than he usually does.

      • John Pieret

        In Masterpiece Cakeshop, they didn’t even get that far. The baker tossed the couple out as soon as he found out they were gay and wanted a cake to celebrate their earlier wedding in another state. So he wouldn’t be “participating” in any “ceremony,” just baking a cake for a party. They never got to discuss designs, much less any message, if any, on the cake.

    • Anri

      Or if, yanno, the people who marched under the symbol of a cake served at a same-sex wedding tried to conquer Europe and Asia and gassed several million civilians while doing so.

      Nazis genuinely did bad things. Gay people getting married, not so much.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Lol, quite. Still, I think it’s useful to recognize that the argument fails regardless; that it doesn’t merely reduce to one person’s feelings being more valid than the other’s.

  • skl

    The Masterpiece Cakeshop
    case was decided by the Supreme Court last summer in favor of the baker who
    refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, but it was a narrow
    ruling that set little or no precedent. It remains an open question how far “My
    religion demands that I not serve your kind” can go.

    As I recall, that question was never in play, since the
    baker had already been serving cakes and baked goods to gays.

    Instead, the question that is still open is whether the
    baker can be forced to participate in the celebration
    of something which violates his religious beliefs.

    • eric

      Baking in one’s own shop is not “participating in” a wedding celebration. The celebration occurs in a different place, at a future time, with invited guests – of which the baker probably isn’t one.

      You don’t “celebrate” someone by providing a standard business service to them. Lawyers aren’t celebrating the crimes of their clients. Amazon isn’t “celebrating” nazism by selling WWII paraphenalia. An internet service provider doesn’t “celebrate” porn by making it possible for someone to connect to a porn web site. The local party store isn’t “celebrating” murder rampages by selling a Jason hockey mask. And bakers aren’t “celebrating” someone’s marriage by baking them a cake that gets used later in the actual celebration. But if you agree with me on all those examples except the last, tell me what’s different about it.

      • Baking in one’s own shop is not “participating in” a wedding celebration.

        Yeah?? Tell that to baby Jesus! I hear him crying …

      • skl

        Baking in one’s own shop is
        not “participating in” a wedding celebration.

        I think I disagree. The baker providing the
        goods consumed for any occasion (e.g. birthday, brunch, wedding) obviously participates in that occasion to some extent. And so, the baker participated – willingly – in, say, gay birthdays and brunches. Because virtually everyone celebrates birthdays and virtually everyone likes a brunch with some tasty treats. But not everyone celebrates a wedding of two people of the same sex.

        Additionally, the wedding cake is a food item
        uniquely associated with the wedding celebration – as opposed to various meats, vegetables, breads, etc. In other words, I doubt a butcher of similar religious persuasion would object to providing roast beef for the SSM occasion.

        Some brief comments on your list:

        – “Lawyers aren’t celebrating the crimes of their clients.”

        I agree. They’re “celebrating” their client’s
        right to a defense against unjust conviction for crimes.

        – “Amazon isn’t “celebrating” nazism by selling WWII paraphenalia.”

        I agree. But Amazon doesn’t know the motivations
        of sellers and buyers of Nazi memorabilia. Some may be building a memorial or museum on the horrors of Nazism. But if Amazon knew the Nazi memorabilia was to be used to promote Nazism and the murder of Jews, Amazon might act differently.

        – “An internet service provider doesn’t “celebrate” porn by making it possible for someone to connect to a porn web site.”

        I agree. An ISP “celebrates” providing their customers the freedom to “travel” to whichever sites the customers want. Similar to a car dealer or a public transit system. But I think if some prospective bank robbers told the car dealer they wanted one of his branded autos for their get-away vehicle, the car dealer might legally object.

        – “The local party store isn’t “celebrating” murder rampages by selling a Jason hockey mask.”

        See my comments on Amazon.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          Bullshit.

        • eric

          The baker providing the goods consumed for any occasion (e.g. birthday, brunch, wedding) obviously participates in that occasion to some extent….

          …but Amazon doesn’t know the motivations of sellers and buyers of Nazi memorabilia…

          Your second argument makes your first argument invalid. The baker does not in fact know what the buyer will use the cake for, any more than Amazon knows why someone buys nazi paraphenalia. Maybe they want to roll over their cake in their monster truck as an expression of disdain for gay weddings. Maybe the couple is hetero but they have a joker as a best man who decided to request a second figurine of the same sex to see the look on their faces when it’s delivered (and he has the extra figurine in his pocket). Maybe the buyer isn’t gay and isn’t even getting married, but wants to support the freedom of gays to marry by seeing whether the local baker will abide by equal opportunity laws.

          Now, if you want to reply that the baker can make an educated guess as to the most common reason one would buy such a cake, you’re right, he can – but so can Amazon about someone buying up lots of Nazi stuff. Heck they even know who their sellers are and aren’t, and can put two and two together. And an ISP can certainly guess one of the things young adult males (like, college guys renting their first apartment) will regularly use their internet connection for – and it ain’t their calculus homework. So if ‘don’t know for certain, but can make an educated guess as to probable use’ isn’t “celebration” in the latter two cases, it isn’t for the baker either. OTOH, if you want to claim it counts as celebration for the baker because he can make an inference as to how the cake will probably be used, then by your argument Amazon celebrates nazism and ISPs celebrate porn, because they can also make inferences to probable use.

        • skl

          The baker does not in fact know what the buyer will use the cake for, any more than Amazon knows why someone buys nazi araphenalia.

          But I think this particular baker knew. He had sold other cakes to gay customers before. (He may even have sold wedding cakes to gay customers, where the cake was for a hetero wedding.)

          Also, on the subject of Amazon and ISPs, another internet phenomenon came to mind – Facebook. I’m pretty sure Facebook has
          gotten away with banning users (i.e. refusing them service) whose legal communications Facebook doesn’t like. Maybe Masterpiece Cakeshop will be allowed the same power.

    • John Pieret

      Really? When was the last time you were at a wedding where the guy/gal who baked the wedding cake presided at the ceremony, was in the wedding party or was even invited to the reception? When was the last time you saw a wedding cake that had writing on it, much less “As your baker, I approve your getting married”? The baker is “participating” in the wedding as much as the sanitation worker who picks up the garbage the next day.

      • John Pieret

        BTW, as to what the case actually decided, it was that Justice Kennedy, on his way out, decided to warn anti-discrimination boards/officials not to appear to be too anti-religious, as a mea culpa for all his pro-LGBT decisions over the years (which are now in danger of being overturned). In fact the board involved was expressing an animus to self-righteous assholes making stupid arguments … like ski.

      • Greg G.

        My brother-in-law’s birthday is today but we had birthday cake for dessert after the Christmas dinner. Not one employee from the bakery showed up.

        • I hope they at least picketed outside.

        • Greg G.

          Oh, I thought they were carolers with imperfect pitch.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Just to be an Imp’s Advocate: I know a few bakers who *did* celebrate with the happy couple and their families…they *were* family, or good friends, already.

        😉

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        I didn’t even meet whoever baked our wedding cake. We picked the design from the catalog, picked “chocolate” and the venue organized the interaction with the baker. We supplied our own cake topper. I see no reason for the baker to even have known our names.

      • skl

        The baker is “participating” in the wedding as much as the sanitation worker who picks up the garbage the next day.

        The sanitation worker does participate in the
        wedding, but only in the most tenuous, indirect way possible. Similar to the
        utility company providing the power to heat or cool the reception room. No one wants trash to pile up or people to suffer in heat or cold.

        But the provision of the wedding cake is a different animal, so to speak.
        As I noted in my response to eric, the wedding cake is an item uniquely associated with the wedding celebration – as opposed to various meats, vegetables, breads, etc. In other words, I doubt a butcher of similar religious persuasion would object to providing roast beef for the SSM occasion.

        • John Pieret

          I doubt a butcher of similar religious persuasion would object to providing roast beef for the SSM occasion.

          Then why would the baker object?

          the wedding cake is an item uniquely associated with the wedding celebration

          First of all, the claim is that the baker is being forced to participate in the ceremony. The celebration afterwards is not part of the ceremony. Anyway, you can’t simply declare that something is “uniquely associated” with a wedding as an excuse to break the law. It’s a freaking cake … flour, eggs, butter, milk and various flavorings, with icing that is basically sugar … I’ve never seen one with writing on it but if the couple asked for something written on it that was offensive to the baker, then he might have a case not to do the writing but that doesn’t justify refusing to bake the cake.

        • skl

          First of all, the claim is
          that the baker is being forced to participate in the ceremony.
          The celebration afterwards is not part of the ceremony.

          I haven’t heard of wedding cakes at wedding
          ceremonies. I’ve heard of them only at wedding receptions celebrating the wedding. Anyway, I only
          said that the baker was being “forced to participate in the celebration of something which violates his religious beliefs.

          Anyway, you can’t simply declare that something is “uniquely associated” with a wedding as an excuse to break the law. It’s a freaking cake … flour, eggs, butter, milk and
          various flavorings, with icing that is basically sugar …

          Whether any breaking of the law occurred is yet to be decided. (But, hey, maybe if the baker had just delivered a big bowl of flour,
          eggs, butter, milk and various flavorings, with icing that is basically sugar, and let them deal with the rest, he wouldn’t be in this mess!)

        • John Pieret

          I haven’t heard of wedding cakes at wedding ceremonies.

          Which is why his claim that he’s being forced to participate in a gay wedding is bullshit. He’s only providing a cake for a party. Just because he doesn’t like the people throwing the party is no reason to discriminate against them. And he has been adjudicated to have broken the law by several courts as well as the Colorado anti-discrimination law and the Supreme Court did not vacate that finding. They just sent it back to the lower court to consider whether the board showed undue animus against religion in general. Also a simple reading of the law shows he broke the law … he refused to serve customers because of their sexual orientation (a protected class under the state law) with no excuse recognized under that law.

        • skl

          Just because he doesn’t like the people throwing the party is no reason to discriminate against them.

          Again, he doesn’t necessarily dislike gays (although there’s no law against such dislike) and he doesn’t discriminate against gays, as he sells his goods to gays and non-gays alike. He just doesn’t like and chooses to discriminate against his involvement
          in celebrating SSM.

          … a simple reading of the law shows he broke the law … he refused to serve customers because of their
          sexual orientation (a protected class under the state law) with no excuse recognized under that law.

          But he served gay customers his cakes and
          baked goods up to the event in question. Now, maybe if “wedding
          celebrations/receptions” is a protected class, he’d be in trouble.

        • John Pieret

          He just doesn’t like and chooses to discriminate against his involvement in celebrating SSM.

          You said it yourself. He’s discriminating and don’t pretend it isn’t against gays. He is discriminating against gay customers because of what they intended to do. That is specifically prohibited by the Colorado law. Your logic-chopping notwithstanding.

        • skl

          You said it yourself. He’s discriminating…

          Nothing necessarily wrong with discriminating. Everyone does
          it every day of the week. Including you.

        • We’re talking about the illegal kind.

        • skl

          Whether it’s the “illegal kind” has yet to be “finally” decided by the SCOTUS.

        • John Pieret

          Whether you think it’s wrong, it’s illegal.

        • skl

          Then you should be locked up.

        • delivered a big bowl of flour…

          But by his logic, isn’t that participating in the wedding just as much?

        • skl

          See my comment above involving sanitation workers, utilities, butchers.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Nope.

      The baker can serve the PUBLIC, or start a private ‘No Gays Cake Club’, with the consequent loss of business reach.

      YOUR KIND don’t get to pick and choose what PUBLIC you’ll serve while claiming a religious exemption…that shit ended when we ended racial segregation. This blatant attempt at discrimination is NO different in the eyes of SECULAR law.

      • skl

        The baker can serve the PUBLIC, or start a private ‘No Gays Cake Club’, with the consequent loss of business reach.

        Churches also serve the PUBLIC. Anyone can come off the street and partake of their services. But those services might not
        include SSM, even if they don’t have a sign outside that says ‘No Gay Weddings Here’.

        • John Pieret

          There are churches where blacks, immigrants, and gays are not welcomed. But that is besides the point. Churches and other religious institutions, along with ministers and those who act in ministerial roles are exempted by anti-discrimination laws. The idea of those laws are to allow disfavored people to move around the country and get essential services when they do. Churches are not considered essential services.

        • skl

          Churches are not considered essential services.

          Neither are wedding cake bakers.

        • John Pieret

          Yes they are under the Colorado law. So are restaurants, cleaners, motels and just about all businesses that are open to the general public to do business. “Essential” here means every business that caters to the public on the grounds the protected classes of people are entitled to access to all the services the general public has access to on because they represent the quality of life they are entitled to.

        • skl

          Interesting. I’m hoping you would be kind enough to list the business
          services which Colorado considers non-essential.

        • John Pieret

          They are the ones not covered under the law. You can look them up yourself.

        • skl

          Even more interesting. That is, how you so willingly go into
          significant detail here on what a particular state, Colorado, classifies as “essential” business services, yet you won’t lift a finger to explain its “non-essential” business services.

        • Prove that every triangle inscribed in a circle with one side as a diameter is a right triangle.

          Oh, sorry. That was off topic. Kinda like what you’re doing.

        • Greg G.

          Watch it. He might go all Pythagorean on you.

        • skl

          Not off-topic at all to me.

          John Pieret said that providing a wedding cake was an “essential” business service per Colorado law. That seems absurd to me. Given that Colorado apparently distinguishes between “essential” and “non-essential” business services, I’m curious of the definition of the latter, and why provision of wedding cakes wouldn’t be included in that definition. I think this might well have importance in the legal case here.

        • Maybe this won’t seem absurd to you: you must provide equal access, without discriminating against religion, race, and many other categories, including sexual orientation. Doing otherwise violates Colorado law. It’s illegal, and it just makes sense.

        • skl

          The baker is not discriminating against religion, race, and
          many other categories, including sexual orientation. If anything, he’s
          discriminating against celebrating a particular action.

        • When your argument fails, toss some word salad? That’s a helpful addition to the conversation, thanks.

        • skl

          If by “word salad” you mean the “discriminating
          against religion, race, and many other categories, including sexual orientation”
          , that’s just the salad I was served.

        • When your argument crumbles, you don’t respond to the question you were asked. That’s frustrating. I’d appreciate it if you’d just man up and admit the problem.

        • skl

          When your argument crumbles, you don’t
          respond to the question you were asked. That’s frustrating.

          Perhaps then I can ease your frustration.
          Please state which question you’re talking about.

        • An opportunity to go back to square 1 with my ol’ buddy skl. Gee, if I only had the time …

        • skl

          Takes but a minute to restate the question.

        • Natureboi

          If anything, he’s
          discriminating against celebrating a particular action.

          And exactly what, or specifically who makes this “action” an problem?

    • lady_black

      IIRC, nobody invited the baker to participate in any celebration, much less forced him.

  • aCultureWarrior

    Thanks for acknowledging that the Masterpiece Bakeshop SCOTUS ruling wasn’t a victory for religious freedom, as unlike Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges, there was no legal precedence set (not that the Founding Fathers wanted liberal activists on the high court to set legal precedence, but that’s a subject for another time) nor were any laws protecting homosexual degenerates overturned. Jack Phillip’s defense, presented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, blew it by playing up that Phillips was an artist who shouldn’t be forced to create something that went against his artistic expression. The ADF basically threw Christians under the bus that aren’t “artists”. Jack Phillips is now suing the CO Civil Rights Commission because they’re hearing a case by a genitally mutilated man pretending to be a woman who Phillips refused to bake a cake for because cutting off one’s penis and dressing up like a woman goes against Christian doctrine. The best of luck to you Jack, but until homosexuality is recriminalized, the sexual deviants will keep harassing you (death threats, lawsuits, etc.) until you close your business doors for good..

    • Max Doubt

      “The best of luck to you Jack, but until homosexuality is recriminalized,…”

      It sounds like you really want some legal impediments to dissuade you from getting into some, ya know, same sex sex. Let me offer a couple ideas to help you save a lot of time, money, and trouble trying to change laws that you will never change. Idea one: Get some professional counseling to help you come to grips with your fear of discovering your own sexuality. Idea two: Join a same sex dating site or two. Take a look around. You just might find someone you really like. 🙂

      • aCultureWarrior

        Ahhh, the ole “if you speak up against something, then you must have those desires” ploy.
        I guess that means that all of you atheists are really closeted Christians?
        And laws by themselves won’t do any good. The sodomite movement took control of American culture and changed the heart and minds of the American people into believing that sexual degeneracy is good.
        Your movement made fast results in just a few decades, thanks to death threats, judicial activism and such. Since the pro traditional family values movement isn’t into death threats, it’ll take a while to get this country back on the right track.

        • John Pieret

          At first I couldn’t tell whether you were a Poe or not. I think you answered that now. You’re a moral moron who thinks he has the right to run everyone else’s life. May I give you a hearty “Fuck You!”!

          The majority of people have come to realize that they know, like and love their acquaintances, co-workers and relatives who are gay and how wrong it is to deprive them of the rights everyone else has because of an inherent trait of who they are attracted to and love. You and those like you are worse than dinosaurs, who at least live on in their descendants, the birds. You are disappearing fast and permanently … and good riddance!

          And, BTW, Christians are always telling atheists that they really believe in god. Just another thing you’re wrong about …

        • aCultureWarrior

          *A quick question for you John: Did you get that dirty mouth from licking the toilet seat of public restroom toilet stall that you homosexuals are known for frequenting for purposes other than urinating or defecating?
          *I’m well aware that the majority of people (at least here in the US and in other western countries) approve of homosexuality. If they really knew what was involved (the disease, misery and death that comes with it), who knows, they might care, but chances are they wouldn’t.
          History isn’t on your side John. Countries that embrace moral degeneracy don’t last that long.

        • John Pieret

          I’ve learned to talk to assholes directly in terms they can understand, over a long life that taught me not to suffer fools gladly. If I’ve hurt your delicate sensibilities, tough shit! You have a far dirtier mouth when denigrate the humanity of people you don’t even know because of a biological trait that is inherent. And what reasonable people do is neither “approve” nor “disapprove” of what gay people do, they mind their own business! But, of course, you’re not a reasonable person.

          Same old crappola: “degeneracy” (as you define it) brings down countries. The Roman Empire lasted far longer in its “degenerate” state than it did once it became officially Christian. Countries rise and fall for many reasons, but who people are allowed to love ain’t one of them, despite your masturbatory dreams.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *When I decided to get involved in the culture war John, I knew that I ‘d have to submerge myself in the moral sewer that you child molesting degenerates fester in, so you can say anything to me and I won’t so much as flinch, as I’ve heard and seen it all before. As far as your long life: Granted, the median life of a homosexual is no longer 40 years +, thanks to HAART drugs and such, but don’t get too comfortable, as those “opportunistic diseases” that come with your HIV/AIDS end up getting your kind every time.
          *I wouldn’t love God (and His institutions) with all my heart, mind and soul and love my neighbor as I love myself if I minded my own business about homosexuality and the agenda that comes with it that is nothing but a culture of death.
          *Admit it John, you couldn’t care less if our nation survives, as you’re surrounded by death and a nation that is dying only comes with the territory.

        • John Pieret

          So I’m a “child molesting degenerate”? And I’m gay (not that I’d be ashamed if I was)? But it would have come as a big surprise to my late wife of 31 years, 10 months and 13 days! If I can (or someone here can help) track down your real identity, I will sue your ass off for defamation. Trust me, after being a lawyer for 40+ years, I’ll make your putrid little life hell!

          And your statistics are all like this … wildly thrown around without understanding and without any connection to real people.

          If your god gives you “permission” to meddle in other people’s lives, he/she/it can fuck itself too!

          And as to our nation surviving, your equal asshole in the White House, by ignoring climate change, setting about destroying our firmest world alliances, engaging in stupid trade wars, and selling our country out to the Russians, among many other stupidities, has done much more to destroying America than all the gay people in the country!

        • aCultureWarrior

          Sigh, yet another defender of sexual perversion that goes out of his way to point out that he doesn’t want anything to do with the behavior.
          I run across quite a few of you in my internet travels; you’re poster boys for the traditional values cause.

        • John Pieret

          What? What the fuck does that mean? I don’t want to interfere with your sexual behavior (which I do not assume is “normal” in a lot of other people’s opinions). How does my minding my own business mean I’m supporting other people who consider you a pervert?

          That’s the problem with all you people! You think you know what’s “normal” when, in fact, there are other people out there who think you’re the “deviants.” It’s always the way of it, everybody is a pervert to somebody else. It’s not hard to see how a cramped, ugly person like you will do something ugly and mean to another person during sex.

        • aCultureWarrior

          God decides what’s right and what’s wrong. If society leaves it up to man, all kinds of destruction occurs.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          YOUR KIND don’t get that excuse any more.

          Until you can *demonstrate* your ‘god’, keep it the FUCK out of the way of us good people living our lives.

        • Greg G.

          Did you imagine that yourself or did you let somebody else imagine it for you?

        • lady_black

          Your imaginary sky daddy is something I don’t need in my life. If you need it, that’s fine. But I’m not sleeping with your teddy bear. You enjoy it.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I can only speculate that you’re a sodomite that does all kinds of sexually depraved acts and encourages others to do so, i.e. you write your own moral code, hence the reason the sodomite movement is a culture of death.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I can only speculate

          You could’ve stopped there, as that’s ALL you do…and then act as if your foolish, baseless speculations were some kind of reputable evidence.

        • John Pieret

          After your admission of mere speculation, everything else in that sentence is just a meaningless word salad of stock religious bafflegab pushed together.

        • But you don’t write your own moral code? That’s surprising to me since the Bible (and Christianity) are clearly not unambiguous sources of morality. If you have an objectively correct source of morals, share it with us.

        • lady_black

          Yep. I’m a woman, married to a man. 31 years now. Sodomy is one of my favorites.

        • aCultureWarrior

          So you and your husband take your children to parades where all kinds of moral depravity goes on yet you’re allegedly “straight”?
          What happened in your life that made you HATE your children so much?

        • lady_black

          Now wait… I didn’t say I was straight.
          I am a bisexual woman, married for 31 years to a man, faithfully. You seem to be confusing orientation and behavior. That’s because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
          I love my husband very much, and wouldn’t cheat on him with a man or a woman, the same way as a straight woman might also be faithful to her husband, or a straight man be faithful to his wife.
          But getting married didn’t change who I am. It never does. I am MARRIED… not DEAD.

        • aCultureWarrior

          So you’ve allegedly been married to a man for 31 years and have been what you LGBT flag wavers call “faithful”, yet still identify yourself as a bisexual? (the “B” in the LGBT acronym). I hate to break the news to you lady, but you’re not faithful if you’re fantasizing about having sex with another woman (or a female child if that’s your “thing”, and who am I to question if that’s your “thing”?) while married to a man.
          You peoples are really messed up and in need of a Lord and Savior. Have I mentioned that I know just the right (and only) Savior for you?
          https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gonQKt_kg_A/hqdefault.jpg

        • bekar

          Oh wow, no you haven’t!!! There’s a lord and savior and it’s Jesus? We’ve never heard of that ever in our lives before!

          /s

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/772f808a5e8cc805cee619205872081de7bb6a6342586f2bd6104eb4e770abed.jpg

        • bekar

          Ooh ooh I have another one… Which of the 40,000+ versions of Jesus is the right one?

        • aCultureWarrior

          The one with the universal moral code.

          “Let us be blunt: It is simply not possible to espouse relativism — which holds that right and wrong are opinion — and be a true Christian.

          Why? It’s simple: Jesus did not die for our opinions. Jesus did not say that His blood was the blood of the new and everlasting covenant and that it would be shed for you and for all so that opinions may be forgiven; He did not say, I am a way, a truth, and a life; He did not say, let he who is without opinion cast the first stone; He did not say to that dark tempter, “It is said, ‘Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God,'” but, hey, Satan, whatever works for you.

          There are many doctrinal differences among the denominations, and good people could debate them ad nauseam and still not settle every one. Yet, if anything is central to Christianity, it’s the belief that Truth is spelled with a capital “T,” that it is absolute, universal and eternal. And also central is a corollary of this belief: that there is an absolute, universal and eternal answer to every moral question; that right and wrong are not a matter of opinion, that they don’t change from time to time and place to place…
          http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/duke/100301

          Now back to what in your life happened to cause you to defend (and most likely partake in) same sex buggery.

        • bekar

          “The one with the universal moral code.”

          Oh cool, which one is that then? Seems they all made that claim.

          “Yet, if anything is central to Christianity, it’s the belief that Truth is spelled with a capital “T,” that it is absolute, universal and eternal.”

          Somehow religionist seems to have a concrete, indisputable answer to what that is.

          “Now back to what in your life happened to cause you to defend (and most likely partake in) same sex *******.”

          I do not debase myself to use language so insulting (including what I’ve said to you already), so I’ll simply say I defend the right of all humans to enjoy whatever activities they like with enthusiastically consensual partners, as long as they don’t hurt others. This even includes you. You really should try something different. Whatever you’re doing in your life clearly isn’t working!

        • aCultureWarrior

          Simply put: let’s just say that the faggotry that you engage in is abhorred by Judeo-Christian doctrine.

        • bekar

          Well aren’t you the special little snowflake. Whether or not I engage in such activities, why would I care what you or anyone else thinks? Clearly you care about what other people think of what you may or may not do with your genitals.

          BTW, for your information (not that you’ll listen) Judeo-Christian isn’t a thing. Do you mean Jewish? Or Christian? Those are not the same thing. Please go back to 3rd grade before you continue posting such drivel.

        • aCultureWarrior

          You passed the little test that I give those who vehemently defend homosexual behavior and the LGBT child molesting agenda, by making it a point numerous times to let the world know that you’re NOT a homosexual, which in and of itself, is you saying that there is something terribly wrong with the behavior.
          I see you need a little history lesson on the term “Judeo-Christian”.
          “The second meaning of Judeo-Christian is a belief in the biblical G-d of Israel, in His Ten Commandments and His biblical moral laws. It is a belief in universal, not relative, morality. It is a belief that America must answer morally to this G-d, not to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world. ”
          http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/prager_2004_03_30_04.php3
          Here’s another:
          https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html

        • bekar

          You’re so funny… I’ve not once denied or confirmed being homosexual. Learn some reading comprehension, please.

          And why do you think that Jews and Christians worship the same god? Duh, Christianity stole from Judaism. That doesn’t mean they’re actually worshiping the same supernatural being, even if it existed.

          Do you realize that people like you are simply a joke to educated people? Or are you oblivious to that too. Don’t bother to pretend you’re more educated than the rest of us. Your poor command of the English language and lacking of any logical skills leaves nothing to the imagination.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *You’re obviously a sodomite, but if you were going to pretend that you’re not, I was going to play along.
          *Your ignorance of Judaism and Christianity is frankly, quite embarrassing.
          *So what you’re telling me bekar is that “educated people” engage and defend all kinds of moral depravity, including using children as props to further their sick and twisted agenda?
          Call me a country hick if that’s what being ‘edjumacated’ is all about.
          And whats due you meen that I have a pour comannn of da engleesh language?
          I’ve sinned many times in my life bekar (oh Lord have I sinned), but knew what I was doing was wrong and that I needed (and still do need) a Lord and Savior to guide me in the right direction.

          Why are you too proud to admit that what you’re doing and what you stand for is wrong bekar?

        • I’ve sinned many times in my life

          Then you’re not a Christian (1 John 5:18).

        • aCultureWarrior

          LOL…there was only one perfect man that ever walked the earth. I’ll tell you if I ever achieve what He did.

        • I’m not talking about perfection; I’m simply quoting your holy book.

        • bekar

          You make fun of education? It is to laugh. Please stop wasting space on this planet.

        • by making it a point numerous times to let the world know that you’re NOT a homosexual, which in and of itself, is you saying that there is something terribly wrong with the behavior.

          Every time someone says they’re not something, there’s an implied attack on that? I’m not a cop, so therefore cops are bad; I’m not a doctor, so therefore doctors are bad; and so on. Must be great being so clairvoyant.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Did Bobalou just compare homosexuality with being a cop or a doctor? I do believe he did!).

        • Someone needs to work on his reading skills. But I do enjoy saying: Wrong again!

        • John Pieret

          So now you’re fishing to be banned, are you? … so you can go back to your fellow troglodytes and claim that you so annoyed the sodomites and atheists with your brilliant arguments and sterling logic that they shut you up? Well insulting the blog owner is a good way to try. Of course Mr. Seidensticker said no such thing but your contempt for truth is hardly surprising given your behavior here.

        • aCultureWarrior

          [Duhhhh …]

        • John Pieret

          Of course you’d prefer the company of pigs ….

        • Make that argument using the Bible.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Seriously? Come on Bobbie, if God embraced homosexuality you’d be His #1 fan.

        • (1) Wrong. God is an asshole–read the Old Testament.

          (2) The Bible makes no argument against loving homosexual relationships, which are the topic at hand.

        • aCultureWarrior

          1). Its is noted that Bob HATES God
          2). With the exception that God embraces “loving” homosexual relationships (which He doesn’t), which in Bob’s messed up world, would make God a pretty good guy.

        • Someone needs to read his Bible for comprehension.

        • There are objective moral truths? And you know what they are?

          Cool! Give us some examples of these moral truths, show us that they are objectively true, and show us that they are reliably accessible by ordinary humans. Otherwise, your claims are as laughable as the last two dozen eager but thoughtless Christians who made the same stupid claim.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Thou shalt not use the poop chute for sex, especially if you’re of the same sex of the recipient.
          How’s that for an absolute truth Bobinski?

        • lady_black

          Nonsense, Idiot. Being married never means you aren’t attracted to people other than your spouse, regardless of orientation. And NO, it is not wrong to fantasize. It’s NORMAL to fantasize. No wonder you people are all so fucked in the head. You subscribe to the theory of ‘thought crimes.’ What a dull existence you lead. No imagination. Scared all the time of your monster who lives inside your head.
          Free your mind. Your ass will naturally follow.

        • aCultureWarrior

          But you have sexual attraction towards other women (or little girls if that’s your “thing”, and who am I to question what your “thing” may be?).
          Obviously you were traumatized as a child, which brought about your homosexual desires. While some might applaud you for not doing what your brother did to his spouse, I abhor you for embracing the LGBT child molesting agenda and even involving your children in it.

        • While it’s fun watching you sink Jesus’s Good Ship Lollipop with your hateful, ill-informed drivel, your insults are getting old. Make evidence-based arguments or give vile-free opinions or get banned. Or worse.

        • lady_black

          So what??? I also have sexual attraction toward other men. WHO CARES? Like I said, I’m married. Not dead.
          Being a pig like you are, you must believe that every sexual attraction must be acted upon. I assure you, you are wrong about that. From puberty through death, sexual attraction is normal. It’s how we’re wired, as human beings, so it cannot be “wrong.” If you say it’s wrong, then you are denying your “god” that you claim created us, and that makes you a hypocrite (among other things).

        • Greg G.

          Don’t blame your homosexual desires on your molestation. You were that way from before you were born.

        • Every hateful thing you type falls onto this “Jesus” of yours. And you think you’re honoring the Great Commission? If Jesus actually existed, he’d tell you to shut the fuck up. You’re doing him no favors.

        • “He’s your god; they’re your rules—you burn in hell.”

        • lady_black

          LOL.

        • John Pieret

          Tell your god to come see me and we’ll discuss it. All I see is twerps like you trying to run other people’s lives.

        • aCultureWarrior

          When are you going to make use of that law degree and discuss all of the laws that your LGBT movement is breaking (with immunity)?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR assertion of lawbreaking,

          YOUR burden of proof

          (you feckin’ waste of protoplasm…)

        • John Pieret

          None that I’m aware of. You, however, don’t have the right to reinterpret laws (like dancing is suddenly “sexual perversion”) to match your perverse view of reality.

        • aCultureWarrior
        • John Pieret

          Not much because those laws were pretty much all declared unconstitutional.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          Please do not share saved images on your computer to us.

        • aCultureWarrior

          A nude homosexual exposing his genitalia to children at a march of the moral degenerate parade is probably pretty lightweight compared to the images on most homosexual’s computers.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          A nude homosexual exposing his genitalia to children at march of the
          moral degenerate parade is probably pretty lightweight compared to the
          images on most homosexual’s computers
          .

          Of course you would know this.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I thought your god preferred it before people invented the idea that there was something wrong with being naked

        • aCultureWarrior

          When God created the human body He created a work of art. Keep in mind that people’s taste in art differs. A Christian male prefers his art to be viewed only by his wife, and hers by him, while the LGBTQ movements taste in art is cheapened by displaying it for all to see in a lewd and lascivious manner.
          Plain and simply put: While you might answer the door totally nude with your dick in your hand, others have better tastes.

        • TheNuszAbides

          yeah, but that was All-of-Creation 1.0 … then “He” worked out some kinks.

        • John Pieret

          He’s auditioning to be the next Porno Pete …

        • Then why doesn’t God come here to share his views? No god could exist who would push you as his spokesperson. You’re a walking, talking argument for atheism.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          And when society leaves it up to God, all kinds of destruction occurs.

          Though really “leaving it up to God” is just “leaving it up to people who claim to speak for god” so it’s not surprising you get the same result either way.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          Imaginary beings don’t decide shit.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i was surprised that the clown concedes that there’s a level of authority between ‘man’ and ‘God’. it’s at least capable of parroting abstract thought!

        • LastManOnEarth

          If this God actually gave a shit he would get off his fat lazy ass and do something about it.

        • aCultureWarrior

          He did. He came to earth in the form of man and died a horrific death so that you can be set free. Now that’s “something”.

        • Jesus had a bad weekend; he didn’t die. You really ought to read your own holy book.

        • LastManOnEarth

          That’s hardly convincing. I guess he doesn’t care enough to provide anything more reliable.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Wait, do you think I came to an atheist/homosexual (there I go being redundant again) website to convince moral degenerates of the truth? Heavens no! If someone wants to investigate the truth because of what I’ve written, all the better, but by no means do I have expectations of y’all (other than continuing to be the degenerates that you are).

        • Then why are you here?

        • TheNuszAbides

          congrats on your shortest incoherent rant yet! of course it’s still excruciatingly obtuse. ‘society’ makes some ‘choice’ on this level that ‘man’ doesn’t? perhaps you’re trinitarianism-addled on top of your other pattern-recognition fantasies?

        • aCultureWarrior

          What’s left to ‘rant’ about TNA? Considering the median lifespan of homosexuals is around 44 years (depending on how good their AIDS cocktail is), you probably don’t have much time for longer posts.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The perversion is in your twisted mind, not in the acts of two enthusiastically consenting adults acting in a way that will be unlikely to harm anybody, given proper precautions.

          You and YOUR KIND don’t get to define ‘perversion’ any more, and I can see that just chaps your worthless puckered yearning anus.

        • TheNuszAbides

          aCW deserves a lesson in manners – it’s a shame how obnoxiously resistant it is to any sort of lesson – but i don’t think it deserves reinforcement of the “worthless” meme – that too easily fits into the ‘all you/us wretches did nothing to deserve infinite yaddayaddayadda’ …

        • Dialing up the hatred to 11? That wasn’t on my Christmas list, but thanks.

          Drop the sewer/toilet/degeneracy arguments. If you have an actual argument backed up by evidence or you want to express an opinion in a non-disgusting way, that’s fine. Up your game or my Christmas gift to the commentariat will be to ban you.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Where did you and YOUR KIND get the idea that some word(s) is/are ‘dirty’?!

          Free your mind, and then get back to us.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I’ve often tasked homosexuals/atheists to define perversion. If you ever want to make a homosexual/atheist go silent, ask that question.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Perversion is attempting to harm an unwilling victim who is of legal age and sound mind to decide for themselves.

          Next?

          YOUR KIND seem to think you’re Nolan Ryan when you’re soft-pitching beanbags.

        • aCultureWarrior
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I see a fit man dancing in as much coverage as I’d expect from a swimsuit.

          If anything, the kid would no doubt be laughing at all the jiggling.

          YOUR KIND simply presume your fervent perversions are the norm, and not how you’ve purposely twisted yourself out of hate.

        • Greg G.

          Is that the kind of YouTube channel to which you subscribe?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Oh, and way to change the subject.

          You claimed we couldn’t effectively define ‘perversion’ without using your fucked up hate meme.

          I did, and you immediately changed the subject.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Surprise surprise, when pointed out that homosexuals do perverse things in front of children, Harold can’t even acknowledge that.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Still dodging like mad, I see…

          But, to reply to your idiot drivel:

          Describe, in painstaking detail, EXACTLY what ‘they’ ‘did’ that is or should be considered ‘perverse’ to your twisted hateful fearful rigid mindset.

          YOUR KIND don’t *get* to declare a definition for society, but it would be amusing to hear you try to explain WHY you protest it to the RATIONAL people reading and participating in this blog.

          And NONE of that you already *know* bullshit…*excruciating* *detail* or STFU & GTFO.

        • John Pieret

          He must be a Baptist who thinks dancing is “perversion.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Likely.

          I just want to drive to drive him to a gibbering breakdown by pushing him to express his deepest hidden desires…ain’t I a stinker?

        • John Pieret

          Not at all. It’s a rational response to an irrational person.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ain’t I a stinker?

          Bugs Bunny reference 😉

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXl4MsdEeU

        • John Pieret

          I know …

        • Why focus on homosexuals? A prude like yourself should be far more concerned about heterosexual eroticism within society.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          Ahh but you see heterosexual eroticism is “natural”!

        • I’d like to see CW bring the little girl in question into a strip club for some healthy heterosexual eroticism.

        • lady_black

          Big hairy deal! My kids saw more than that on a public beach.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I bet that you not only take them to ‘gay’ pride parades where all kinds of sexual depravity is displayed , but to festivals of moral debauchery like the Folsom St. Fair. We’ll eventually get things turned around and the state will take children away from your kind and put them in homes where they’re loved, and put perverts like yourself someplace where they can’t harm children.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your impotent outrage is showing, and if it weren’t for the unearned, undeserved privilege YOUR KIND still wield, it’d be *hilarious*.

          Stop martyrbating, clean yourself up with some tissues, and try giving unslanted FACTS and an argument that logically proceeds from them.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          How was the Folsom St. Fair by the way? I’ve never attended a gay pride parade but you seem to be well versed in all things homosexual.

        • aCultureWarrior

          So you defend something without knowing the moral debauchery behind it? Perhaps you should be locked up for your own safety?

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          It better not be in a closet like yours.

        • bekar

          Just how do you come to be so familiar with “moral debauchery” anyway?

        • lady_black

          You won’t get ANY of MY children, Fathead.

        • John Pieret

          I suppose you’re moron enough to try to shield deprive your child of seeing this if they were lucky enough to travel to Italy.

        • John Pieret
        • aCultureWarrior

          Thanks again for acknowledging that you have no problem with exposing children to sexual perversion John. You child indoctrinators “molest” the minds of innocent children.
          12 Ways Homosexual Adults Endanger Children
          https://barbwire.com/twelve-ways-homosexual-adults-endanger-children/

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If you consider BarbWire to be an authority, you have bigger problems than your hateful fear of people living their lives ignoring your worthless ass.

        • aCultureWarrior

          It’s an article explaining to people who have an ounce of decency why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed around children. Don’t think for a second that I’m trying to persuade you Harold, as it’s more than obvious that sexual abuse as a child was the cause of your homosexuality, and like so many others like you, you want to share your pain with innocent children (misery loves company).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          It’s an emotionally-charged screed about how YOUR KIND don’t like LGBTQ folks to openly be themselves, so y’all will lie and smear as necessary to try to fool people into supporting your campaign of hate.

          Y’all are *losing*…ain’t it delicious?

        • John Pieret

          “Ounce of decency”? With your contempt for the law and simple facts and evidence? You wouldn’t know it if it crawled up your leg, sat on your ass and began yodeling the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i love it when a couple of ounces of decency do all that in concert.

        • homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed around children.

          No? Why is that?

        • John Pieret

          What “sexual perversion” was going on? Are you a Baptist who is against sex because dancing might break out? You are a total parody of the uptight (supposed) moralist who sees perversion everywhere. You asked before for a definition of “perversion” … it’s any sexual act not between consenting adults. I didn’t see any sexual acts going on in that video.

          And BarbWire? Really? You have drunk deeply from the Kool-Aid …

        • Tip: don’t take kids to the beach or swimming pool. There’s a lot of bare skin showing.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          Yet you seem to have no problem exposing yourself to “sexual perversion” like attending gay pride parades or having pics of naked men on your computer.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Ashamed of your culture are ya? Not to worry, people in our once great nation don’t care about moral depravity anymore, but I’ll keeping exposing perverts nonetheless.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          You’re doing a great job of “exposing” yourself.

        • Otto
        • But if it’d been an erotic heterosexual dance, it would’ve been OK, right?

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          One of your favorites?

        • Because they didn’t have quick access to a dictionary?

        • Greg G.

          Did you get that dirty mouth

          When my faith was failing, I was trying to get it back. I went back to the church where I was saved. The sermon was about why people use the Lord’s name in vain. After talking for twenty minutes, the preacher finally answered the question with, “There is POWERRRR… in the NAAAMMMMMME… of the LOOOOOORRRRRRRRRD!” I thought, “Bullshit! Oh, that word has the same power, too!” I realized that the power came from the taboo, not the word. It was the coup de grace for my faith.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          *A quick question for you John: Did you get that dirty mouth from
          licking the toilet seat of public restroom toilet stall that you
          homosexuals are known for frequenting for purposes other than urinating
          or defecating?

          I guess you asked that question since you were probably attending the gay pride parade that day and you were not at your usual spot.

        • TheNuszAbides

          History isn’t on your side

          the pretense that you have anything accurate or helpful to say about history is the most hilarious fantasy i’ve read all month.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Considering the sick fantasies that you have on a daily basis TNA, I’m not sure if I should feel honored or sickened to be your top fantasy of the month.

        • Max Doubt

          “Ahhh, the ole “if you speak up against something, then you must have those desires” ploy.”

          Not at all. Your comments around here show that you’re quite interested in same sex sex. Very, very interested. More so than most gay people I’ve known. And you’re making it clear you want it to be more difficult to engage in same sex sex. Obviously it wouldn’t do you any good to prevent other people from having sex with whoever they like – unless you have some kind of preoccupation with imagining other people having sex – but that’s a whole ‘nother problem for ya, isn’t it? So the prohibition you want is pretty obviously to protect you from your own fears.

          “I guess that means that all of you atheists are really closeted Christians?”

          You’re having a hard time keeping up. Hint for ya: The conversation can be a lot slower, less intellectual, and probably more comfortable for you on some of the Christian forums. If you need some help finding some, let us know.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Let me be honest with you Max: After being around you degenerates I feel the need not only to shower repeatedly to get the stench off of me, but I feel like I need to delouse.
          Why am I interested in this subject? Let’s start off with the subject of children.. Your LGBT movement is nothing but a bunch of child molesters Max. You went mainstream with your child molestation recently on Good Morning America when a young boy was idolized on national television for being a drag queen.
          https://www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Desmond_Napoles_on_GMA.jpg

          The kid has been dancing provocatively in ‘gay’ pride parades since he was 8 (he’s probably been raped numerous times and already has HIV).

          Do you know what Jesus says about you child molesters Max? It isn’t ‘t pretty:
          Matthew 18:6

        • John Pieret

          he’s probably been raped numerous times and already has HIV

          And, like most assholes, you say hateful things like that without a shred of evidence. You are despicable!

        • aCultureWarrior

          It’s duly noted that you have no problem whatsoever with little boys that are drag queens.

          Looking at CDC reports of children with HIV: I highly doubt it that they got it through a blood transfusion (i.e. brought to you by a homosexual pedophile/pederast).

          https://americansfortruth.com/uploads/2013/09/HIV-Young-Adult-Males-2011-CDC.png

        • John Pieret

          And what does that prove about this kid (BTW, I’m a lawyer and what you said is probably defamation per se)? Why am I not surprised that you don’t have an inkling as to what “evidence” is?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Being that you’re a lawyer John, you’re familiar with laws that are on the books that aren’t being enforced under certain circumstances. Public nudity, lewd acts in a public place, all being done in front of children at ‘gay’ pride parades with immunity. The people who commit these acts and the people who allow these acts to be perpetrated, are all guilty of “Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor”. When these degenerates allow an 8 year old boy to dance provocatively in front of hundreds of thousands of perverts in attendance at these moral degenerate parades, they too are guilty of CDOM.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=4TLZdyv4IcU

          How about we talk about domestic terrorism and how RICO laws would apply to the LGBT movement next?

        • John Pieret

          Wait! Bodies are “lewd”? Really? Children shouldn’t know what human bodies look like? Says who? Oh, right … you get the “right” to tell everybody else how to live and act! I repeat, “Fuck You!” Children are people with a right to know about the world and what goes on in it. The only ones abusing them is those not teaching about the world because they’re afraid they don’t know enough to make any sense to them.

          As to the kid, the only one who would find that “provocative” is a real pervert, one who would sexually exploit a child. So, tell me, are you a Catholic priest? That would fit …

        • CanuckAmuck

          Fine replies all, John, but I wouldn’t waste any more time on this abysmally ignorant tumor were I you. I do recognise that there is a certain catharsis in slamming such effluent down so thoroughly, though.

          OT: “Thoroughly, though” was surprisingly tough to type.

        • John Pieret

          Yeah … the law of diminishing returns … but still, there’s part of me that hates to let the scum think it’s won. I’ll hang around for a while before I tell it that the smear on the internet’s floor is no longer worth trying to scrape up.

        • John Pieret

          P.S. I appreciate the encouraging words.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          For the OT: Alliteration FTW!

          😉

        • Greg G.

          Allegorical alligators alliterate alphabetically always.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show harm, and cui bono, or kwitcherbitchen

        • lady_black

          I attend the local Pride Fest every chance I get. I have yet to see any lewd acts, and there are lots of children there.
          There is, however, great food and drink, great shows, and civic activism. My daughter was registered to vote at a Pride Fest. There was a lady going around registering voters, and I got her attention and pointed to my daughter and said “She’s unregistered.”
          Not only gay people participate and enjoy these festivals. There are a lot of allies out there who know love is love. Sort of how you don’t have to be married to someone of another race to realize that laws forbidding interracial marriage were wrong, and deprived people of rights. By the way, those people used all the same arguments you’re using. They were bad arguments then, and they’re bad arguments now. What POSSIBLE business is it of yours who your neighbor chooses as a spouse?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Like I said in my earlier post: We’ll get children in the custody of child molesters/indoctrinators taken away from your kind and put someplace where they’re safe from moral degenerates. This insanity didn’t happen overnight, so it will take some time to correct it.

        • John Pieret

          Oh, good! A totalitarian as well as a religious zealot. Tell us where you get your black uniforms and your jack boots!

        • aCultureWarrior

          If taking children away from perverts is totalitarian, then count me in. BTW, Hitler was a homosexual, but that’s a topic for another time.

        • John Pieret

          First of all, the “perverts” are quite normal people (get used to it, gay people are normal) who are entitled to equal rights and due process under our Constitution. “Taking away” children from gay people just because they’re gay is deeply totalitarian. But I’m glad you admit to being someone with contempt for the law. Let’s just say I am less than surprised.

          I don’t know why you raised it … except to demonstrate your ignorance … but Hitler was probably an asexual but we don’t really have any definitive evidence for it … not that it would make any difference to you, with your contempt for evidence too.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          *Pedophiles* are perverts.

          MOST pedophiles are heterosexual males.

          LGBTQ folks have a statistically MUCH lower incidence of pedophilia.

          Also, it’s perverted to condemn another person’s sex life because of one’s own *irrational* superstitious disapproval.

        • Since you’re the expert, tell us: what’s a “pervert”? (And “a person I don’t like” is incorrect.)

        • Kodie

          So you can’t be compared to Hitler or Trump?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hugo Boss, of course! /s

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          That’s EXACTLY the point….you and YOUR KIND WON’T…and that chaps your worthless ass to no end.

          YOU’RE LOSING ALREADY, AND YOU’RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LOSE, TO THE EVENTUAL ULTIMATE IMPOTENCE OF AN IMPOTENT STERILE LONELY DEATH

          And I love every second of your pain, as you’ve inflicted SO MUCH MORE on people…you feel pain from having your wishes ignored, and that’s pain you DESERVE, acutely, every second remaining of your miserable existence.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I can see through your posts how much pain you’re in Harold. God doesn’t lose; if you don’t repent and accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you’ll be on the losing end.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope…just yelling to make sure your elderly daft deaf ears can hear it.

        • bekar

          Judges 1:19, champ… I’ve no use for such a pitiful god even if it existed.

        • Damn iron chariots!!

        • Pro tip: when your general persona is hateful, switching to “God wuvs you” doesn’t work.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Especially when you immediately follow ” God wuvs you” with REPENT OR BURN!

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          God doesn’t lose; 

          Unless the enemy has iron chariots.

        • lady_black

          Yeah, good luck with that. If you had a quarter to buy a clue with, you’ll note that my daughter registered to vote. Got any idea what that means? It means you haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of getting custody of any of my children.

        • A kid is part of a parade celebrating civil rights, and that bothers you?

          I guess no one can be having fun if you’re not having fun.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Waving hands is “Dancing provocatively?”

        • He’d probably find my (fully clothed) stoned swaying “provocative” just ‘cuz I have boobs.

        • John Pieret

          How did you get those? Only holy people can use those in holy ways! Degenerate wimmens with boobs will also be outlawed in aCultureWarrior’s America!

        • Shit if I know, I just woke up with them on my chest one day. Same way I just woke up bleeding one day. Wasn’t something I wanted or asked for.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And I’ll bet you and YOUR KIND have no problem with making little boys into castrati in order to keep those pure soprano voices, as YOUR KIND have a track record of doing for centuries.

          ‘Feminine’ clothes don’t even APPROACH that level of moral turpitude.

          As for your ‘study’, give me the date(s) it was done, and the geographical area…unless you’re going to try to claim that only white people matter (which you just might, being the fuckup you are…)

        • So “practice safe sex” is your message?

          Internationally, HIV is about as common in females as males. No, it’s not a homosexual-only disease.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Then go the fuck away.

          There will be MUCH rejoicing in this province.

          And as for atheists being ‘closeted xtians’…nope. You and YOUR KIND of assholes stop attacking us for living our lives trying to ignore you worthless fucks, and you’ll hear nary a peep from us.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          What does being a drag queen have to do with child molestation?

          Have you seen child beauty pageants with young girls? Would you call THEM child molestation?

          (he’s probably been raped numerous times and already has HIV).

          Can you support this or is it just a baseless assumption?

        • Ask Santa for a dictionary next year. “Homosexual” and “child molester” aren’t synonyms.

        • Greg G.

          Ask Santa for a dictionary next year. “Homosexual” and “child molester” aren’t synonyms.

          What’s another word for “thesaurus”?

        • Wordfinder. Wordbook. Synonymy, if you’re looking for an obscure one.

        • I’ve never molested anyone, thank you.

          But you know full well that 99% of child molesters are straight CHRISTIAN men.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Yet you molest the minds of children Kitty. We can talk about NAMBLA and it’s homosexual founders and Terry Bean, Ed Murray, Harvey Milk and the very long list of homosexual pederasts another time.

        • bekar

          Funny enough, the only person who ever molested me was a straight evangelical christian. Both mind and body. Fuck off, troll, and leave WMDKitty alone.

          And once again, homosexuality != pedophilia.

        • aCultureWarrior

          First let me thank you for admitting that sexual molestation plays a huge part in what brought about one’s homosexual desires. That being said: I hate to break the news to you bekar, but being porked in the arse by another male doesn’t make him “straight” and certainly not a follower of Christ.

        • bekar

          I admitted nothing of the sort. You have no idea what happened to me or what the results were. That’s quite clear because you’re wrong on both counts. Did I say I was molested by a man? Did I say I was anally raped? Did I say I was a male? Did I say I was gay?

          The answer is no to all of the above. Your god-blinders prevent you from seeing anything resembling the real world.

          But one thing I can say for sure… yes, the individual I refer to was and is straight and a genuine “follower of christ”, which is to say playing happy pretendy-times that encourage oppressing others. Just like you want to.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I’ve heard your story a thousand times by a thousand EX homosexuals (and some who still partake in the depraved behavior), so don’t try to cover it up with denial. There is help for you out there bekar. Granted, you’ll be loooooooathed by people who you thought were your friends for seeking spiritual and psychological help, but then they’re really not your friends to begin with are they?

        • bekar

          ROFL, you haven’t even heard my story as I told it here, let alone as it would be told if I included all the details. You wouldn’t hear a story if it walked up and burrowed into your brain through your earhole.

          It’s clear that you don’t give a flying fuck about anybody besides yourself and your pitiful tribe. I’m thrilled that I’ll likely live to see the day your tribe becomes all but extinct, you repulsive oxygen thief.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/459c68cdd8aabfb1623b7802d736b2d4b201c0a819d1e2c4871d9acb92902462.gif

        • aCultureWarrior

          Why am I not surprised that you moral degenerates teach children profane gestures?

        • Otto

          No my kids never learned about Christianity.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I’m sure that you and your husband (or is what’shisname just a live-in boyfriend of the week?) teach them to HATE God as much as their parental figure does.

        • bekar

          So tell me… why is it you HATE Zeus so much?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Is Zeus the god of buggery? If you’re not an atheist that writes his own moral code, obviously you’re a pagan who went ‘god shopping’ and found one that embraces your immoral lifestyle.

        • bekar

          Good job changing the topic. Zeus is every bit as real as whatever god you believe in.

          What a marvelous intellect you have!

        • aCultureWarrior

          When it comes to intellect bekar, I’ve known for quite sometime that a certain body part NEVER goes into an orifice that was designed to expel human waste. I give free lessons in common sense and morality if you like bekar.
          http://www.3benefitsof.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/the-holy-bible.jpg

        • bekar

          Alas, you have such a weak grasp on sarcasm. Your little book of myths and legends is worth nothing to anyone with a functional brain.

        • And yet homosexual practice is widespread among animals. You lose.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Roberta uses all of the LGBT talking points, but aCW does him one better by providing FACTS.
          http://www.tfp.org/the-qanimal-homosexualityq-myth/

        • Thanks. I always like to get my science from “an organization of lay Catholic Americans concerned about the moral crisis shaking the remnants of Christian civilization.” I’m sure they’re objective.

          Since you’re eager to embrace the facts, I’ll let you go first in pointing out how this article doesn’t make your point. If you can’t, let me know and I’ll do it.

          But first, I need to get your response to my demand, twice ignored now, that you clean up your hateful act or get banned. Or worse.

        • aCultureWarrior

          [I really do need to rethink this whole supernatural hidden hateful God thing. He desperately wants a relationship but he can’t get off the couch to even make his existence known? And then there’s the problem of him using assholes like me to spread the word.]

          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P3t_cx9Q6BE/UAoDFd7sfKI/AAAAAAAAALE/DiGwpjCYo5A/s1600/pink+tank.jpg

        • You haven’t figured out what “or worse” means yet?

        • bekar

          Apparently not.. mighty fun for the rest of us though.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I know I’m *still* not going to get your Bud Light (old commercial…), but, for the aCW ‘rephrasings’:

          I *LOVE* YOU, MAN!!!!!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re belying your supposed fundagelical roots.

          This hate group is a fully-owned subsidiary of the RCC (Raping Children Church):

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_the_Defense_of_Tradition,_Family_and_Property

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So you never place your penis (which is the ONLY route to eliminate liquid waste from a human body) into your wife’s vagina, thus using a waste orifice in a sexual organ?

        • But that’s DIFFERENT because PENIS IS SPECIAL!!!
          /s

        • And you don’t write your own moral code? Show us. Show us its objective grounding.

        • aCultureWarrior

          There’s a huge difference between struggling with sinful thoughts and behavior (and asking God to give me the strength to overcome those temptations) and stating in one’s moral relativist opinion what is right and what is wrong.

        • stating in one’s moral relativist opinion what is right and what is wrong.

          What’s wrong with this? Isn’t that what you do?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You have to *demonstrate* this stupid hateful superstitious ‘god’ meme of yours with evidence before this ‘sin’ idiocy you’re gibbering about could even exist.

        • Greg G.

          There’s a huge difference between struggling with sinful thoughts and behavior (and asking God to give me the strength to overcome those temptations)

          You are not overcoming your temptations. Your temptations are made stronger to the point that you cannot stop thinking about them. It makes you a miserable, hateful bigot. Instead of trying to overcome your temptations, let your temptations lead you to coming.

        • He’d be so much happier if he’d just let go and have some fun…

        • Greg G.

          Maybe one day, the temptations will overcome him.

        • They will, and it’s gonna be fucken ugly.

          If we’re lucky, it’ll make the national news!

        • I Came To Bring The Paine
        • Otto

          I didn’t say anything about God, I said Christianity.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Damn, the projection YOUR KIND spew is *amazing*.

          We don’t hate you…we really don’t even *think* about you.

          We HATE that you’re trying to force your hateful superstition into secular law when you have no evidence for it and it’s an obvious authoritarian power grab.

        • bekar

          Oh come on now aCultie, it’s just one of god’s children’s fingers, what’s so bad about that?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Explain how that gesture is ‘profane’ in any fashion.

          Be explicit, thorough, and show your work.

          “Because it offends my fragile fee-fees” is NOT an acceptable answer.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hmmm, is it worth bringing back trepanning to get a story into aCW’s head?

          (probably not…)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          As usual, you’re lying in your fucking teeth (may be dentures by now, for all I know)

          I only wish there was a way to stop your flow of spleen and turn it in on yourself until you drowned on it.

        • Greg G.

          Why are you hanging out with “a thousand EX homosexuals” and active homosexuals? Most of us hang out with people, some of whom are gay and some who are not. We just don’t bother to ask about their sexuality.

        • Like, it doesn’t even come up unless the topics of partners or latest crushes comes up. And half the time, that’s just to complain that Partner does this one thing or has this one habit and oh my god it’s so annoying.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You missed it, as usual.

          bekar hasn’t said she’s homosexual, just that her molester *wasn’t* homosexual, but a STRAIGHT, CHRISTIAN man.

        • Molestation didn’t make me queer, dipshit. Orientation doesn’t work that way. You can’t molest someone into being gay, you can’t rape someone into being straight.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Upvote for getting past the molester,

          🙁 for you suffering molestation .

        • My abuser was a straight white christian male. Rather like CW here, rabidly ‘phobic, deeply closeted, and completely unable to comprehend reality.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          How is telling people the truth about observed reality ‘molestation’ in *any* sense?

          YOUR KIND are more vicious molesters of children’s innocent minds by inculcating a false superstitious fear.

        • Never molested a mind, either. You, on the other hand, are so obsessed that I can say with certainty that YOU have molested at least one child.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          Another one of your “favorites”? lol.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The kid has been dancing provocatively

          Turn yourself in to the authorities, IMMEDIATELY, if you consider a child that young ‘provocative’ (YOU are implying sexually, asshole!) IN ANY WAY!

        • Greg G.

          Ahhh, the ole “if you speak up against something, then you must have those desires” ploy.

          It is more like the “if you speak about something incessantly, it appears you think about it incessantly, which raises the ‘Why?’ question.” You wouldn’t be the first person to rant continuously about homosexuality when it is your own desires you are fighting.

          ETA

          I guess that means that all of you atheists are really closeted Christians?

          Many of us are ex-Christians. We tried it, we didn’t like it. Maybe you should try being an ex-closeted homosexual. You may find it suits you better and you will be happy without pretending to be happy all the time.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Is the truth about your lifestyle getting to you Greg? Has all of that disease, misery and death that you’ve seen finally taken a toll on you Greg? I’m here to help you find a way out of your deathstyle Greg, not to bury you, as you’ve been to enough funerals of friends haven’t you Greg?

        • Greg G.

          Actually, the last funeral I attended where the deceased was under eighty was about forty years ago when I was a Christian. My health is still good. People are surprised that I am over 50 but I passed that age more than a decade ago. I’m doing well. No thanks.

          Edit: Wait, I attended the funeral of a woman I worked with about 20 years ago. She was a 42 year old Christian lady. She hadn’t worked there long but I chatted with her many times.

          She told me that she told her friends in Texas that I actually talked to her. They were astonished that a white man would talk to a black woman in a friendly way. i was astonished that they were astonished by that. One of those things that changes a person’s perspective.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Then you need to get out and see what behavior that you defend does to those who engage in it.
          http://obit.glbthistory.org/olo/index.jsp

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          By your standard, left-handed people should be punished because a long time ago, before proper sanitation, the left hand was the dung hand and people didn’t want dung in their food drawn by hand from a common bowl.

        • lady_black

          Gives them orgasms?

        • No, NO!! Don’t bring out the obits that show that gay people die as well as straights! Don’t you realize you’re undercutting our argument that homosexuality is the path to immortality?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You keep on casting the ‘if you’re calling me an asshole for being an intolerant loudmouth, you MUST be doing what I’m being a loudmouthed asshole about!’
          card.

          It has never worked, and still doesn’t.

          Also, since there’s nothing inherently right or wrong about hetero/homo-sexuality, trying to use one of them as an implied insult is a scrotum-chin move.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not ‘if you speak against it’, it’s ‘if you frantically and single-mindedly force your opinion on others who care nothing about your desires.’

          You and YOUR KIND are as bad as that one kid who INSISTS on telling you all about his/her favorite show/game/comic/etc. despite being told flat out we don’t give a fuck and you’re being annoyingly intrusive.

        • The sodomite movement took control of American culture and changed the heart and minds of the American people into believing that sexual degeneracy is good.

          And the Civil Rights movement changed American hearts and minds into seeing that African Americans were people deserving the same rights as everyone else.

          I guess the gay rights movement is just another step along that progression.

        • Ahhh, the ole “if you speak up against something, then you must have those desires” ploy.
          I guess that means that all of you atheists are really closeted Christians?

          Show us that atheists think of Christians as disgusting degenerates, otherwise your claim of parallelism fails.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Ahhh, the ole “if you speak up against something, then you must have those desires” ploy.

          you, a dichotomy-addled clown, calling out dubious rhetoric? … like a bee calling out honey.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I’d stick around and debate you TNA, but isn’t Tuesday the day of the week that you go to the clinic to “get tested”?

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Why not go someplace where your preferred mores obtain, then? I hear Russia is a totalitarian hellhole where you and YOUR KIND would fit right in…until your free speech gored the Russian government’s oxen…then it’d be off to Siberia with you, or a (n un) healthy dose of some nerve toxin.

      Freedom means the freedom to tell you and YOUR KIND to fuck right the hell off.

    • I’ll pray the goddess of peace for you.

      • Greg G.

        Pro-tip: You will be less nervous while praying if you imagine the goddess of peace is naked.

      • aCultureWarrior

        Be careful, if the gaystapo catches you praying to anyone other than Satan, they very well might come after you too.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You just don’t get it, do you?

          We really don’t fucking care, as long as it’s not forced on those who don’t believe in ANYbody’s superstition.

        • You may be worshipping Satan too, so be careful.

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          LOL. You’re so deep in the closet you found your Christmas presents early.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      Phillips refused to bake a cake for because cutting off one’s penis and dressing up like a woman goes against Christian doctrine.

      But baking a cake doesn’t go against Christian doctrine so Phillips doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      You know what I call someone who asks about a customers genital’s before making them a cake? A pervert.

    • Jesus Christ–they let in anyone to this party, don’t they?

      • eric

        They strongly object to serving gays, but will happily consume writing produced by pro-gay writers.

        Following their religious principles…so long as they are personally convenient.

    • eric

      Phillips refused to bake a cake for because cutting off one’s penis and dressing up like a woman goes against Christian doctrine.

      Castrati were introduced to non-religious European society by Cardinal Ippolito II d’Este, when he offered the services of his own castrati to the (secular) Duke of Mantua. In the same decade, we have records of castrati serving in the Sistine Chapel choir.

      So, rather than it cutting off somone’s penis ‘going against Christian doctrine,’ it was the Christian church who introduced and encouraged the practice to the secular leaders of Europe. It was Christianity that promoted the idea of of cutting boys so they could sing as sopranos (at least in Europe; the practice was older elsewhere).

      • aCultureWarrior

        So what you’re saying is that moral debauchery has quite a history in the Catholic Church? (And here people only thought that their homosexual priests liked little boys).

        • eric

          First, ‘debauchery’ implies Church moral thinking stated that it was wrong, but some people did it anyway. This is simply not the case; the church thought it was morally okay.

          Second, Castrati were employed in Europe from the 1500s-1700s. I.e. about the same time as the Reformation. So while the introduction was from Catholics, the implication that Protestants or Protestantism as a faith rejected it, is AFAIK false. Your sect thought it was okay too.

          Yes times have changed and neither non-believers nor believers think cutting off the genitals of some child is acceptable. But they did. Your church did. This is not an example of ‘debauchery,’ its an example of how your sect’s morals have changed over the past 500 years.

          As a final irony, the reason people back then thought it was okay was because they considered children to have far less rights than modern 1st world states do. But you know what group is most likely to think children should have less rights and be considered basically property of their parents? Fundamentalist evangelicals. You may have rejected this one conclusion reached by your predecessors, but Christian fundamentalists are the group least likely to have rejected the logic they used to reach it.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Thanks for the history lesson about the moral relativism of Church teachings that go against Holy Scripture (you are going to provide passages and verses from Holy Scripture that prove your point aren’t you?).
          There is currently a Church in westernized uncivilization that flies a rainbow flag and says that God approves of “loving” homosexual relationships that that God even approves of genital mutilation for those that were born in the wrong body. So as you can see, just because they call themselves a Church, doesn’t mean that they embrace the teachings of God as seen in Holy Scripture.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show me ONE PLACE in your ‘holy scripture’ where it forbids creating castrati!!??

          Book/chapter/verse or STFU & GTFO.

        • Greg G.

          Show me ONE PLACE in your ‘holy scripture’ where it forbids creating castrati!!??

          Matthew 19:12 (NKJV)12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.

          Oh wait. Jesus is actually encouraging being castrated.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Good catch…*delicious* irony.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ALL of xtianity is characterized by the debauchery of power.

    • LastManOnEarth

      ? The fuck is wrong with you?

      • aCultureWarrior

        Spending all of this time in a website full of atheists and homosexuals (I know, that was redundant), yes, what the hell is wrong with me???
        I guess I take loving God with all of my heart, mind and soul and loving my neighbor as I love myself serious.

        • John Pieret

          Given all the insults, crude generalizations and general nastiness you have been spewing here, you have a very different definition of “love” …

        • aCultureWarrior

          Contrary to the beliefs by many in this day and age, Jesus Christ (shown here wielding a whip)
          http://donteatthefruit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/jesus-whip.jpg

          wasn’t a limp wristed pacifist who was nice to everyone.
          https://kgov.com/nicer-than-God

          The bottom line is that I would love nothing more than for all of you to repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and to join the fight to restore decency. That might not be love in your book lawyer John, but it is in His (and His views are all that count).

        • LastManOnEarth

          If the Jesus actually gave a shit he’d get off his fat lazy ass and do something about it.

        • Otto

          Jesus liked whips…good to know

        • I hear he also looked good in assless chaps.

        • John Pieret

          According to one source, he also likes being made to wear a garter belt, stockings and high heels …

        • aCultureWarrior
        • Otto

          I think it is cute you think that is suppose to be intimidating.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Whips and chains are obviously your “thing” Otto, but you confuse God’s justice against evil with your morally depraved culture.

        • Otto

          No…you posted the thing about Jesus and whips…I never owned a whip in my life. Plus Jesus hung out with 12 dudes, AND he does not seem to care one bit about your culture war. Yeah … you worship a likely gay man/god.

        • Greg G.

          The word “feet” is often used as a euphemism for those parts below the waist in the Bible. When David learned that he had knocked up Bathsheba, he sent for her husband, Uriah the Hittite to come speak with him. David encouraged him to go to his house to “wash his feet” so that when he returned from the military campaign and came home to a baby, he wouldn’t be suspicious. When Uriah was asked why he did not do so, Uriah said his men were sleeping in tents in the open air and “How could I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife?” [NIV] So Uriah knew what David meant.

          So when Jesus washed the disciples’ feet…

        • So when Jesus washed the disciples’ feet…

          with fragrant oil …

        • Otto

          Wow….that’s…interesting

        • Ruth was advised to lie next to Boaz and uncover his “feet” (Ruth 3:2-4).

        • Otto

          Did Ruth say anything complementing the size of his feet?

        • Greg G.

          Of course she did. She was trying to persuade Boaz to redeem her.

        • “She was trying to persuade Boaz to ‘redeem’ her.”

          Oh, that’s what they were calling it back then?

        • Greg G.

          They did euphemisms every night.

        • “Good lord, cousin Boaz, is that a size 13 or 14 I see? And it must be triple-E!”

        • https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1a6303c8793879baf0c283f3557cad2d4ca2f34a7b8cea72fed0e2afa5063af5.gif

          Also, um… I kinda wanna see a porno based on that. Just for giggles, of course.

        • bekar

          Just come out of the closet already…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Closet? Dude (assumption)’s on the far side of NARNIA!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hey, YOU started it, you self-hating kinkmeister!

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Christianity has nothing to do with justice. You get either heaven or eternity in hell. which you get has nothing to do with whether you’re a good person, just whether you suck up to god. That’s not justice, that’s insanity

        • MR

          Ask them to define justice and watch the goalposts shuffle.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Kitteh!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Bullshit.

          I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.

          Show me *evidence* or STFU & GTFO.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          God is love if you redefine love…

        • If God existed, he’d be horrified at your hateful persona.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Mocking evil ideology and behavior isn’t hate Bobarino. Besides, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but not because of people like me.

        • Yup, God’s an asshole–I’m with you there.

          As for your hateful comments, show them to your mother or your pastor and see what they think of them. Maybe they will give you an objective outsider’s opinion.

        • aCultureWarrior

          [Sorry about the hateful comments. I’m off my meds at the moment and I’m not quite sure which way is up. I’m kinda going in and out of awareness at the moment. But yeah, when you think about it, Yahweh sure is a shithead, isn’t he?]

        • See what I did there?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Impressive. I guess if that keeps you out of public restroom toilet stalls for a half hour, it was worth it.

        • “Now, therefore, behold, Bob hath put a truth-telling spirit in the mouth of this troll, and Bob hath spoken facts concerning thee.”

        • !

        • Michael Neville

          I’ve seen this before, Bob. The next thing that happens is that aCultureWarrior will be shown the door.

        • I’ll bet you correctly anticipate the endings of movies, too.

        • John Pieret

          I’m trying to understand your HATRED of God

          It’s his hateful representatives on Earth. The fact that he doesn’t shut up people like you shows that 1) he is as hateful as you or 2) he doesn’t exist and it’s you I find hateful.

        • aCultureWarrior

          So ignore us haters. Pick up His book and discover God on your own.

        • Otto

          God needs books written by men to be discovered? Wow…that’s really unimpressive.

        • John Pieret

          Been there, done that, returned the T-shirt.

        • Otto

          If you really are in a culture war, and God is on your side, why are you losing so badly?

          I mean it is not even close.

        • aCultureWarrior

          You know what they say Otto: “It’s the final score that counts” (you aint gonna win).

        • Otto

          But God should never lose…he is being trounced. I think they call that mailing it in.

        • aCultureWarrior

          [Wow–if I only had an argument, y’know? But my Christian environment didn’t equip me very well.]

        • Otto

          He kills Christians all the time so…yeah pretty weak stuff.

          And he is STILL losing your precious war…it is almost like he isn’t playing

        • John Pieret

          From the looks of the hair, mustaches and clothes, that’s from back in the 1980s. when the government, under the sainted Ronald Reagan, was refusing to spend any money on discovering the cause of AIDS and a possible cure. Gay men were hardly the only vector of the disease. In Africa, transmission was largely through heterosexual sex and where religious nut jobs like you told people not to use condoms, causing tens of thousands of unnecessary infections and deaths.

          Transmission rates in the US are now quite low. We have drugs that prevent transmission and treatments that can make AIDS a chronic, not deadly disease. But you don’t want any of that, you want gays to die. Go try to bring back stoning and see what kind of reception you get in any state or Federal legislature and let us know when you after you’re dragged out of there as a dangerous lunatic.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          From the start of the epidemic, when, due to YOUR KIND’s demonization of LGBTQ folks and unwillingness to spend money on research, lots of people died.

          And you, you unrepentant fuckup, are *glorying* in it.

          Notice that *science* has already thrown your supposed ‘god’s punishment on the defensive, and they’re developing a *vaccine* against it?

          So much for your ‘god’.

        • Your team will never catch the Snitch, dude.

        • “Mocking evil ideology and behavior isn’t hate”

          Oh? Then why do you complain so much when your own, demonstrably-evil ideology (Christianity) is mocked? You just said yourself it’s not hate…

        • LastManOnEarth

          What’s really bothering you, Bunkie?

        • aCultureWarrior

          Proud and unrepentant sinners. There is a fix for that you know.

        • LastManOnEarth

          No, Bunkie, that’s not it.

          You are afraid that the Jesus doesn’t really love you, so you desperately try to fight his “enemies” to try to earn his love. But it doesn’t work; you still feel empty inside and alone. And that pain turns into anger, but you redirect it at others because you are afraid to admit that you are really angry at God for his inaction and absence.

          Honestly, Bunkie, I think you should consider getting a dog. A dog will give you the kind of unconditional love you crave and with time you may start to heal and maybe find the peace that will allow you to rejoin the community of man without being a total douche.

      • Oh, where to start…

      • I Came To Bring The Paine

        Everything.

        • Greg G.

          I bet the poor waitress who gets him at her table ends up asking. “Is anything OK?”

  • eric

    Every gay marriage wedding cake, no matter how it’s decorated, says the man-woman-only view of marriage is wrong

    Complete bullflop. Let’s reductio this logic, shall we?

    Every public trash can, no matter how it’s decorated, says recycling is wrong.
    Every ashtray, no matter how it’s decorated, says smoking is right.
    Every car, no matter how energy efficient, says the ‘bike to work’ view of commuting is wrong.
    Every divorce agreement, no matter how amicable, says marriage is wrong.

    Of course, none of these things “say” anything so global. If they “say” anything at all, it’s a narrow and specific message;
    Recycling may be fine, just don’t litter here
    If you choose to smoke, don’t litter (with your cigarette butts) here
    I personally need or want to use a car to commute; you may feel free to do something different
    We two couldn’t live with each other without doing more harm than good; others may have better luck.

    Likewise, a gay wedding cake says we two love each other – but says nothing about other forms of love or whether the cake baker is right or wrong in his or her moral beliefs.

    • To me the ashtray and rubbish bin both say, “Thank You For Not Littering.”

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        To me the ashtray just highlights all the slobs who still throw their butts on the ground anyway.

        • I’m guilty of that, but in my defense, where the fuck are all the public ashtrays?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I see the people throwing them on the ground right in front of the ashtrays, or smokers poles.

        • Yeah… then there’s that. Like, I get that not every butt is gonna end up in the ashtray, despite people’s best efforts. But deliberately tossing ’em on the ground when there’s an ashtray (or equivalent) right there? That’s just inexcusable.

  • Greg G.

    Today’s SMBC is on-topic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental

    Be sure to read the mouse-over.

  • Sophotroph

    Anti-gay Christians want same-sex marriage to be illegal.

    Gay people do not want opposite-sex marriage to be illegal.

    Never forget that Christians are angry because people are allowed to do something they don’t like, not because of any danger to Christians.

    Likewise, when they say “The institution of the family is under attack”, they mean that they are angry that they can’t force everybody to conform to the family structure they prefer for themselves.

    • And yet in another conversation, they might lament that the institution of marriage is losing adherents. People are living together without getting married.

      If only a new group of people could be convinced to embrace marriage …

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Dammit, there you go *making sense* again!

        😉

    • eric

      Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” – H. L. Mencken

    • skl

      While it may be true that “Anti-gay Christians want same-sex
      marriage to be illegal”, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner had
      no power, and was seeking no power, to make that happen. He only wanted the power to not participate in
      the celebration of SSM.

      • bekar

        He already had that power. He could have worked in a profession that doesn’t involve weddings.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Or just baked the cake and not presume he was wanted at the wedding.

          He’s the baker. The wedding’s not about him

        • bekar

          That is a very good point!

        • skl

          Or just said to the gay couple: ‘Your wedding or wedding celebration does not depend on my cake. If you want such a cake, you have the power to go to another baker.’

        • eric

          An African American’s eating lunch does not depend on them eating it at the counter, either. So your argument here supports the notion that it would be okay for a lunch counter owner to say no counter service for blacks, yes?

        • skl

          The subject baker has nothing against blacks eating or gays
          eating, wherever they want. In fact, the baker has served his baked goods to gays and I assume to blacks.

        • John Pieret

          You’re missing the point, probably deliberately. Once the baker offers his services to the general public, he was obligated to offer all his services he offers to the general public to the people protected under the anti-discrimination law. That’s the whole idea of anti-discrimination laws. It doesn’t matter if he offers some services to gay people. If he denies them other services because they are gay, he is in violation of the law.

          I am sure you can understand that and any pretense that you can’t means you are not discussing this seriously and further waste of time isn’t warranted.

        • skl

          It doesn’t matter if he offers some services to gay people. If he denies them other services because they are gay, he is in violation of the law.

          He’s not denying them certain services because they’re gay.

          Put it this way: If the couple wanted a cake specifically for celebrating abortion, he’d probably refuse that, too. Even if the couple were straight.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          He’s denying them a wedding cake when he MAKES wedding cakes.

          Open and shut discriminatory prejudice case.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I don’t see why it’s the baker’s business what they do with the cake. He advertises it as a wedding cake, but they could buy it, write “marriage sucks” on it and video Gallagher smashing it with a hammer on youtube. Not his business.

        • Once it’s bought and paid for, it’s their property and they get to do whatever the fuck they wanna do with it.

        • It’s a birthday cake, but close enough. ^_^

          https://youtu.be/TZJ54_fnsOI

        • Michael Neville

          He is denying them services because they’re gay. Not too many straight people do same-sex marriage.

        • A wedding cake is a celebration of the marriage of two people in love. It’s not a political statement in support of anything.

          Moron.

        • Damien Priestly

          As an experiment…sometimes I wonder if the anti-SSM baker would feel violated if an opposite sex couple purchased a custom wedding cake, telling the baker for was for themselves…however they handed it over or sold it to a same-sex couple getting married? Same for florists, etc.

          Perhaps couples getting married the same weekend could pull this experiment, maybe online. Christian fundies would probably go nuts !!

        • Or suppose a guy (a stranger to the baker) comes in and asks for a wedding cake. He doesn’t have his partner, so no flags are raised. Does the baker have a checklist of Minorities that God Hates that must be filled out?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’d *almost* accept it if the baker had a BIG sign, and mentioned in all advertising, “No cakes for equal-marriage receptions”.

          Of course, the baker would be out of business in a season, so…

        • Presumably the baker’s Yelp reviews say the equivalent thing now.

        • skl

          A wedding cake is a celebration of the marriage of two
          people in love. It’s not a political statement in support of anything.

          If it’s not a political statement, it’s a statement of some kind. I think
          the baker might say it’s a religious statement, and one which violates his religion in this case.

        • Max Doubt

          “If it’s not a political statement, it’s a statement of some kind.”

          Although it may not have been his intent, his discrimination is a statement that he’s a bigot.

          “I think the baker might say it’s a religious statement, and one which violates his religion in this case.”

          If his religion demands he discriminate against gays in his current line of work, he should find another.

        • And we’re back to square 1. What fun!

          You’re like an exercise bike. Lots of work, and I get nowhere.

        • skl

          You want a different kind of bike.

        • IDK, it kind of feels like I’ve accomplished something every time I go up to a new difficulty level on the step machine.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s a statement, “This cake exists, and likely was made.”

        • “These two people love each other and have committed to a life together.”

          I’m not seeing the bad, here. Help me out.

        • Kodie

          A wedding cake is a traditional element of a wedding reception, something to feed your guests for attending your special occasion. While bathrooms are not a traditional element of a wedding, I feel like housekeeping or maintenance refusing to clean the toilets or stock the toilet paper at your reception venue would be the same thing as refusing to bake a cake. The cake isn’t the celebration any more than the tablecloths or the rented tuxedos, which I feel is where this whole debate heads in the direction of refusing service in general. What if your best man is gay, and the tux place refuses to rent him one? What about baby clothes stores? Can gay parents be refused at places where they want to buy clothes and other things for their baby? All kinds of unique and special places like that can claim to be “art” and not support the “gay lifestyle” or gay adoption, or that a child needs one each man and woman parent. What about the local hardware store? A gay customer wants to build a bookshelf or fix a sink, wouldn’t selling items to help make a home support the “gay lifestyle”? Don’t even start on contractors – can a gay person contract a plumber or housekeeper without issue? Can an uber driver refuse to pick up a couple of gay people who just met in a bar because they’re probably going to have sex when they get home?

          I get that houses of worship can fundamentally refuse to host a ceremony and clergy can refuse to officiate – signing the state marriage license is actively taking part in a ceremony. Everything else is doing your job.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Okay.

          Substitute ‘gay’ in your statement for ‘black’.

          You’re encouraging discriminatory prejudice.

        • Max Doubt

          “The subject baker has nothing against blacks eating or gays eating, wherever they want.”

          But when it comes to refusing to do business with them, it’s all okay with you if he discriminates against blacks and gays, eh? Good luck spinning that in a way that doesn’t make you look like a bigoted asshole.

        • skl

          But when it comes to refusing to do business with
          them, it’s all okay with you if he discriminates against blacks and gays, eh?

          This baker did business with gays, blacks, whites, etc.

        • Max Doubt

          “This baker did business with gays, blacks, whites, etc.”

          This bigoted baker got caught discriminating against at least some whites and gays. At most you can say is he didn’t get caught discriminating against blacks. He is, of course, a self acknowledged bigot. And that’s sort of the point, isn’t it?

        • skl

          Bye bye, bigot boy.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “I’m rubber, you’re glue” does NOT work in these parts, closetboy.

        • meaningless. God never said “don’t do business with those other tribes”; he said don’t intermarry.

        • skl

          meaningless. God never said “don’t do
          business with those other tribes”; he said don’t intermarry.

          In a blog about SSM, intermarriage sounds
          like a… a…. “random tangent.”

          Perhaps you would consider some advice very recently given
          to me here:

          Feel free to “continue” to throw random tangents
          instead of discussing the topic at hand.
          Wait–scratch that. Don’t take random tangents.

        • If it’s OK to discriminate against SS marriages on biblical grounds, it’s also OK to discriminate against mixed-race marriages for the same reason. If you insist on the former, you’re saddled with defending the latter. I alone have made this point maybe a half-dozen times to you, and many others have as well.

          And if you’re using the Bible to defend SSM, know that the Bible is more overtly against the latter.

          I realize that your bumbling idiot shtick is that you’re not allowed to understand, but I’ll just put that out there in case anyone else was confused.

        • skl

          If it’s OK to discriminate against SS marriages on biblical grounds, it’s also OK to discriminate against mixed-race marriages for the same reason. If you insist on the former, you’re saddled with defending the latter… if you’re using the Bible to defend SSM, know that the Bible is more overtly against the latter.

          Again, mixed-race marriage is off-topic, a “random tangent”.
          The legal case to be decided involves only same-sex marriage.
          Specifically, whether someone should be forced
          to contribute uniquely to the celebration
          of something (SSM) against his religion.

          Also again, I don’t think you or the courts should be in the business of deciding what someone’s religion is or should be.

        • Mixed-race marriage is baggage that comes along. Many people like to ignore that (or maybe play stupid, like you).

          If it troubles you to talk about it, simply acknowledge that it comes along for the ride and that you’re just as happy with anti-black religious discrimination as anti-gay discrimination and we can set that issue aside.

          The legal case to be decided involves only same-sex marriage.
          Specifically, whether someone should be forced
          to contribute uniquely to the celebration of something (SSM) against his religion.

          The solution is kinda obvious: if you can’t obey the law and serve everyone equally, then don’t get into a business where that will be a challenge for you. Easy, right?

          Also again, I don’t think you or the courts should be in the business of deciding what someone’s religion is or should be.

          I agree. Why would you think otherwise?

        • skl

          Mixed-race marriage is baggage that comes along…
          If it troubles you to talk about it, simply acknowledge that it comes along for the ride…

          Maybe I’d talk about it when you post an article titled “Turning the Tables on Mixed-Race Marriage? Not with THIS Argument”.
          But probably not, as it’s not a subject of much interest, and hasn’t been for over 50 years (Loving v. Virginia). Until then, I’d prefer on this blog to talk about whether someone should be forced
          to contribute uniquely to the celebration of same-sex marriage
          .

          The solution is kinda obvious: if you can’t obey the law and serve everyone equally, then don’t get into a business where that will be a challenge for you. Easy, right?

          If the solution is so obvious and easy, you better give the heads up to the SCOTUS.

          “Also again, I don’t think you or the courts should be in the business of deciding what someone’s religion is or should be.”

          I agree. Why would you think otherwise?

          I would think otherwise because you are the one bringing up the bible and what god supposedly teaches in it, and more importantly, trying to discredit the baker’s case by pitting your religious interpretation against his religious interpretation.

        • But probably not, as it’s not a subject of much interest

          I hear you. Acknowledging that the door you’re forcing open will make the racist look as reasonable as you is a tough step to take. But you can do it—just man up and admit that this is just an unfortunate consequence of your unfortunate position.

          Until then, I’d prefer on this blog to talk about whether someone should be forced
          to contribute uniquely to the celebration of same-se x marriage.

          Ah, I see—let’s just talk about the positives of your argument and not embarrass you by pointing out the hate that comes along.

          Sorry—it doesn’t work that way. You make a stupid claim, and there are people here who will quickly and eagerly point out the stupidity.

          “The solution is kinda obvious: if you can’t obey the law and serve everyone equally, then don’t get into a business where that will be a challenge for you. Easy, right?”
          If the solution is so obvious and easy, you better give the heads up to the SCOTUS.

          The best aspect of this simple observation is that the supporters of the anti-gay baker say, “What’s the big deal? The solution is easy—just swallow your pride and go down the street. There must be other bakers nearby who will deign to bake a fag cake.” And, of course, the response is, “What’s the big deal? Stop being a baker if you can’t follow the rules of running a business!”

          I would think otherwise because you are the one bringing up the bible and what god supposedly teaches in it, and more importantly, trying to discredit the baker’s case by pitting your religious interpretation against his religious interpretation.

          Uh, it’s the anti-gay baker who’s bringing up the Bible, remember? I’m simply pointing out that allowing “Because the Bible tells me so” as a trump card to civil rights laws, all sorts of hateful shit comes in as well. The Bible is a Pandora’s Box.

        • skl

          Ah, I see—let’s just talk about the positives of your argument and not embarrass you by pointing out the hate that comes along.

          The positives of my argument, yes.
          As to the hate, perhaps you mean your hatred of religious
          people.

          Uh, it’s the anti-gay baker who’s bringing up the Bible, remember?

          No, I don’t remember. If the baker brings up the bible in his legal defense (and I don’t know that he does), that’s his business. But you have made it your business to be Bible Interpreter-In-Chief. And I don’t like that in a supposedly secular legal prosecutor.

        • If the baker says that the Bible says that gay cakes are wrong, that’s what matters. No, my interpretation of the Bible isn’t relevant here.

        • skl

          If the baker says that the Bible says that
          gay cakes are wrong, that’s what matters.

          No, not really. What matters objectively is the
          baker’s religious beliefs. Whether or not his beliefs align
          with all of the bible is a subjective matter and thus not a matter you or the courts should have any business with.

          No, my interpretation of the Bible isn’t relevant here.

          Correct. Which is why I recommend, for about the third time,
          you quit talking here about what the bible does or does not appear to say.

        • All of which is irrelevant. Are you just making conversation?

          What a pleasure it is talking to you.

        • skl

          It must be very pleasurable.

        • Natureboi

          No, not really. What matters objectively is the
          baker’s religious beliefs. Whether or not his beliefs align
          with all of the bible is a subjective matter and thus not a matter you or the courts should have any business with.

          Beliefs don’t need to align to secular laws.
          Beliefs are no excuse for disobeying secular laws.

        • Natureboi

          If the baker brings up the bible in his legal defense (and I don’t know that he does),

          WHAT?
          Are you serious???

          The bible is his ONLY defense.

          What other reason would he have to reject gay people?

        • Natureboi

          If the solution is so obvious and easy, you better give the heads up to the SCOTUS.

          How can a fair and balanced decision come from an unfair and imbalanced court?
          Is this why you voted for Trump?

          I would think otherwise because you are the one bringing up the bible and what god supposedly teaches in it,

          Interpret this:
          Exodus 21:20,21.

        • Natureboi

          Specifically, whether someone should be forced
          to contribute uniquely to the celebration of something (SSM) against his religion.

          Nobody is or has been “forced” to do anything.

          You plummet in credibility with this lie.

        • Natureboi

          In a blog about SSM, intermarriage sounds
          like a… a…. “random tangent.”

          Wrong.
          This is about rights.
          Whose or why rights are retracted is irrelevant.

        • John Pieret

          Hey! You black people go find a different diner because my reading of the Bible says races shouldn’t;mix together and your eating doesn’t depend on my diner.. You Catholics find another gas station because my reading of the Bible says you’re heretics and filling up your gas tank doesn’t depend on my gas station.. You women go find a different hotel because my reading of the Bible says women shouldn’t be traveling without a man and your getting a night’s sleep doesn’t depend on my hotel.

          Of course, in many places in the country there may be no diner, gas station, hotel or bakery for many miles. More importantly, those businesses opened to serve the general public and took advantage of services provided by the government and why should they be allowed to refuse service to some customers based on what the government has determined to be invidious discrimination? .

        • skl

          Hey! You black people go find a different diner…

          I’m confident that the baker in question offered his products to every black person who was interested in them.

        • John Pieret

          Don’t play stupid.

        • skl

          Don’t play with stupid people.

        • Greg G.

          He is either stupid or pretending to be stupid, but it is pretty stupid to pretend to be stupid for so long, so he isn’t really pretending.

        • Otto

          This isn’t playing. It is what is.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Discrimination is discrimination. Whether it’s racial or sexual.

          So stop playing thick.

          You’re glorifying discriminatory prejudice.

        • Michael Neville

          He’s already been show to be a bigot who discriminates against one class of people, what would stop him from discriminating against other classes of people? Your confidence is based on nothing but your wishful thinking.

        • Max Doubt

          “Your confidence is based on nothing but your wishful thinking.”

          That, and a heapin’ helpin’ of the same kind of bigotry as the baker.

        • The bias is strong in this one.

        • Deliberately missing the point? Or do you truly not see it?

        • Max Doubt

          “I’m confident that the baker in question offered his products to every black person who was interested in them.”

          I’m not. He’s a self acknowledged bigot.

        • Why? The Bible is a rich source of prejudice. It says nothing about same-sex marriage, though it does have vaguely homophobic declarations. However, it explicitly bans inter-tribal marriage.

          It’s a far stronger case pointing to the Bible to justify a bias against mixed-race marriage than same-sex marriage.

        • skl

          If you can show convincing evidence that this
          particular baker was prejudiced against blacks, and denied them service because of their skin color, I’d like to see it.

        • Hmm–are you stupid and can’t follow the argument? Or are you just being duplicitous? Decisions, decisions.

          Evidence of his various kinds of discrimination isn’t the point. I’m simply observing that the same Bible logic for discriminating against gay cakes is even stronger for discriminating against mixed-race cakes. You need to embrace them both or reject them both.

        • skl

          I’m simply observing that the same Bible logic for
          discriminating against gay cakes is even stronger for discriminating against mixed-race cakes. You need to embrace them both or reject them both.

          That’s your opinion.
          Perhaps it’s also your opinion that our court system should adjudicate what is correct scripture interpretation and proper Christian theology and what is not.

        • That’s your opinion.

          Brilliant riposte! Your position is much clearer now, thanks.

        • skl

          Apparently, it actually is your opinion
          that our court system should adjudicate what is correct scripture
          interpretation and proper Christian theology and what is not.

          Remarkable.

        • Wrong again. Don’t read good?

          The court doesn’t give a shit about how Christians decide their theology. When religion and law collide, religion loses.

          But that shouldn’t bother you. You’re not a Christian, remember?

        • skl

          Wrong again. Don’t read good?
          The court doesn’t give a shit about how Christians decide their theology. When religion and law collide, religion loses.

          If that’s how you feel, then it sure is remarkable how you several times
          here mentioned the bible and what it says and how a christian should
          follow/interpret it.

        • Sadly, this blog must do more than just cater to you.

          The core of the legal case is a guy who declares that Jeebus would cry if he made a wedding cake that wasn’t used for a holy purpose. So the Bible is kinda relevant.

        • skl

          So you think the SCOTUS should become a theological court, specifically, an infallible court of Judeo-Christian scriptural
          hermeneutics and application.

          I don’t.

        • Natureboi

          I don’t.

          Then why did you vote for Trump?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “I’m confident” == “I have no evidence, but your point is too cogent to otherwise oppose”

        • skl

          Feel free to make your “cogent” case that this baker refused
          his products to blacks.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I don’t have to.

          Simply replacing the word ‘gay’ with ‘black’ in all his (and YOUR) arguments show how invalid the *argument* is, regardless of the disadvantaged class.

        • skl

          Bye bye, HairyEyed.

        • Feel free to “continue” to throw random tangents instead of discussing the topic at hand.

          Wait–scratch that. Don’t take random tangents.

        • eric

          The baker in question may not be racist, but if the courts rule that religious expression trumps civil rights equal opportunity laws, then it will trump all of them. Which will allow denial of service based on race, sex, marital status, etc..

          You really only have three positions here. First, you can take the liberal position and state that religious expression should not trump equal opportunity laws; the baker must serve gay people wedding cakes, just as racist restaurateurs must serve blacks.

          Second, you can take the conservative position that religious expression should trump civil rights laws, and damn the consequences – in which case you’re saying the resulting racial and other forms of discrimination that you’ve let back in the door are all worth it, just so long as you are allowed to discriminate against gays.

          Both of those at least make legal sense.

          But if you don’t have the courage to stand for one of those, you can go for option three, and claim that if religious expression trumps civil rights laws, Christians and others will limit their discrimination to only gays and only ‘artistic’ things like ordering wedding cakes, and that this will not result in any whites-only restaurants or what have you. Birds will sing, kittens will purr, and everyone will live happily ever after in an ideal America where religious freedom is pre-eminent, yet nobody uses that freedom to discriminate against their fellow citizen. That is also a conservative position, but rather than being selfishly and unsympathetically conservative, it’s laughably foolishly conservative.

        • skl

          From what you’ve said, it seems to me that you would also think it should be illegal and unconstitutional for a church to refuse to
          perform a same-sex marriage. If that’s not the case, please explain why.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          Churches have had a special category for a long time, as a PROTECTED CLASS, themselves.

        • eric

          A church is not a for-profit business, so yes it may refuse service to people.

          A bigoted Christian baker has in fact several ways they may re-form their business as a non-profit, and make themselves immune to civil rights laws. They could make themselves a “private club” and charge yearly dues, allowing dues-paying members to access services (like cake-buying) the public cannot. In which case, they are free to discriminate in who they let in their club. They could also become a non-profit or not-for-profit, which changes the sorts of laws they operate under. The downside here is that it can limit the profit margin they charge on services to just a few percent. It also prevents them from ‘going public’ and has a few other ramifications (for example, not-for-profits can’t give random bonuses to employess; everything must be merit-based).

          They could do any of those things. But what they are insisting is maintaining their for-profit business status while not following the laws that govern for-profit businesses. Here is my little violin, it’s playing for you. If you don’t want to obey the laws that govern for-profit public accommodations, make yourself into a non-profit or private club. You can still make money – I absolutely know this to be true, as I work for a not-for-profit, and make quite a good salary. Why Christian snowflakes don’t pursue this option, I don’t really know…well actually I do. Because they want all the benefits of for-profit capitalism, without obeying any of the regulations the government imposes other, regular, normal for-profit capitalism.

        • Carol Lynn

          Non-profit organizations can make as much income over expense as they please, they just can’t distribute its income to the organization’s shareholders, leaders, or members. Income over expense has to forward the purpose of the organization.

        • skl

          A church is not a for-profit business, so yes it may refuse service to people.

          You seem to be saying that an organization
          that brings in money for its services may legally discriminate based on race, sex, etc. as long as it doesn’t provide its services for a “profit.” For example, Planned Parenthood could refuse its services to, say, blacks.

          Let me know if I have that right.

        • eric

          Love how you refuse to answer questions we pose, you just keep asking more. PP is a nonprofit, so yes they operate under different rules. I have no idea what their mission statement or policy documents say, so I can’t comment on whether they could or would discriminate in serving the public.

          Now, I’ve answered three of your questions. Please do me the courtesy of answering one of mine. Which of the three positions I outline above to you take? To summarize:
          #1 I think religious expression should not trump civil rights equal opportunity laws
          #2 I think religious expression should trump civil rights laws, and I’m fine with this opening the door for other forms of discrimination.
          #3 I think religious expression should trump civil rights laws, and I don’t think anyone will use it to practice other forms of discrimination.

        • skl

          Please do me the courtesy of answering one of mine. Which of the three positions I outline above to you take?

          I don’t like any of your three positions and choose none. Each of them seems to assume what I think may be a false dichotomy
          (i.e. Either you have civil rights or you have religious expression, but you can’t have both.).

          I guess I don’t have a firm position, but like to test others’ firm positions here to see if I like them. And I guess so far I don’t.

        • So you like to whine about others’ positions but don’t like to make any statement that requires defending? Seems like the coward’s approach to discourse.

        • Otto

          So you like to whine about others’ positions but don’t like to make any statement that requires defending?

          This is literally all he has done since he showed up here. He has nothing to offer and never will.

        • skl

          So you like to whine about others’
          positions but don’t like to make any statement that requires defending?

          I think I’ve defended every statement I’ve made. If you think I haven’t,
          please show me where I haven’t.

        • Huh?? You just said, “I guess I don’t have a firm position, but like to test others’ firm positions here to see if I like them.”

          So you want someone else to perform, to defend his position, but you’ll never take a position yourself cuz defending a position is a pain.

        • skl

          To repeat, I think I’ve defended every statement I’ve made. If you think I haven’t, please show me where I haven’t.

        • Greg G.

          You might reply but not actually defend. Recently you made a claim then told others to prove it wrong. That is not a defense. You had the burden of proof. You didn’t defend it.

        • skl

          You must be talking about my saying ‘The baker would never refuse
          a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple’.

          You’re right, I never defended the statement. I didn’t
          defend it because I felt no defense was needed. See, I’m not
          aware, and I doubt you or anyone here is aware, of any modern day christians who condemn mixed-race marriage.

        • You keep bringing this up to avoid the actual issue: you must acknowledge that allowing a religious argument for discriminating against homosexuals allows a religious argument for discriminating against mixed-race couples.

          Do so. Admit that this is a consequence of your position.

        • ildi

          Christian colleges want to have their cake and eat it, too:

          https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-coming-collapse-of-christian-colleges/

          In April 2015, during a Supreme Court argument over the constitutional rights of LGBT individuals, Justice Samuel Alito noted that Bob Jones University in South Carolina had lost its tax exempt status because of its prohibition on interracial dating and marriage.

          “Would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” Alito asked U.S. Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr.

          “It’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli answered. “I don’t deny that.”

          The exchange alarmed officials at conservative religious schools, for whom the loss of tax-exempt status or federal funding would be devastating. Their anxiety deepened a year later, when the Obama administration notified colleges and universities that it interpreted Title IX as prohibiting discrimination “based on a student’s gender identity, including discrimination based on a student’s transgender status.” Christian schools saw that letter as threatening a loss of federal funding if they refused to accommodate students who identify as transgender and want to be housed with other students who share their gender identity.

          Upon taking office, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama directive, but some leaders at Christian schools still fear the cultural and legal trends are in favor of expanded LGBT rights on their campuses, which could mean their policies on sexual behavior could face serious challenges.

          Obvious solution is to give up federal funding and tax-exempt status, but that would involve, you know, making a sacrifice for your religious beliefs. How un-Christian is that?

        • skl

          …you must acknowledge that
          allowing a religious argument for discriminating against homosexuals allows a religious argument for discriminating against mixed-race couples.
          Do so. Admit that this is a consequence of your position.

          You must acknowledge that allowing a secular argument for discriminating against the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage allows a secular argument for discriminating against the exclusivity of humans-only marriage. Admit that this is a consequence of your position.

          Everything has consequences.

        • What a surprise–yet another evasion on your part.

          You’re really a waste of space, aren’t you?

        • Natureboi

          Marriage is already consenting humans-only.

          What are you saying?

        • https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/02/19/tennessee-pastor-rails-against-interracial-marriage

          There’s a modern day Christian condemning mixed-race marriage.

          BOOM.

        • skl

          OUCH, Kitty!

          I guess the lesson is: Never say “never”.
          The next step is seeing if the baker subscribes Donny Reagan’s religious beliefs.

        • No, the next step is for you to realize that religious discrimination comes in many forms. When you open the door to one, they all come in.

        • skl

          Better shut the doors to all the churches. Or at least the ones that discriminate against SSM.

        • Is yours deliberate or involuntary stupidity? Choices, choices!

        • Susan

          Is yours deliberate or involuntary stupidity?

          Deliberate.

          For those of us who’ve made efforts to engage skl for the last few years, that’s obvious.

          He’s not just a disingenuous weasel.

          He’s strategically a disingenuous weasel.

          .

        • No, the next step is you shutting the fuck up.

          Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal. DEAL WITH IT.

        • ildi

          https://americanvision.org/15763/interracial-marriage-and-racism-in-modern-ministry-two-prominent-examples/

          Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship …he argues from various grounds that such marriages are themselves a violation of the fifth commandment and a betrayal of God. He also strongly implies, if not argues, that interracial marriages are a form of adultery and constitute no marriage at all in God’s eyes.

          John Weaver of Freedom Ministries

          In the following sermon, Weaver expresses his views that

          1) God created the races to be separate.
          2) God wants the races to remain separate.
          3) Interracial marriage violates the creation ordinance of producing offspring “after your kind.” (This is untrue. Skin colors and ethnicities are not “kinds” as Genesis describes them.)
          4) Interracial marriage is a “form of adultery.”
          5) Racial mixing in marriage destroys and dissolves the bonds of marriage and family, including between parents and children.

        • skl

          Well, I guess the lesson is: Never say “never”.

          The next step is seeing if the baker subscribes Peter Hammond’s religious beliefs.

        • ildi

          No, the next step is you defending religious discrimination against interracial marriage, since you stated you didn’t need to provide a defense of it, given that no modern-day religious leaders condemn such marriages.

          You’re perfectly happy talking in generalities about civil rights vs. religious expression, but you stick at saying that a baker who believes mixed-race marriage is against God’s law has just as much right to refuse such a couple a wedding cake (whether or not they sell cupcakes or birthday cakes or whatever baked goods to such couples) as you seem to think this baker has to refuse a SSM a wedding cake. Is there a certain percent of religious who ascribe to it that makes one acceptable and not the other in your view?

          I suspect what you don’t want to admit is that you don’t think gays have the same fundamental right to marry as straight couples of different races do. It’s important to remember that the Masterpiece Baker case came before the Supreme Court before Obergefell, and in fact one of the arguments the baker tried to make was that SSM wasn’t legal in Colorado at the time (very religious argument, huh). In any event, even before Obergefell the SCOTUS only found a very narrow view that the the Colorado Commission did not employ religious neutrality. Sounds like what you’re really hoping for is a more conservative court overturning Obergefell but you’re too cowardly to own it.

        • skl

          …you stick at saying that a baker who believes mixed-race marriage is against God’s law has just as much
          right to refuse such a couple a wedding cake…as you seem to think this baker has to refuse a SSM a wedding cake. Is there a certain percent of religious who ascribe to it that makes one acceptable and not the other in your view?

          The percentage is not important. I’m just leaning toward not forcing anyone to be involved in the celebration of something they don’t like.

        • Natureboi

          I’m just leaning toward not forcing anyone to be involved in the celebration of something they don’t like.

          How is selling a wedding cake “celebrating?”

        • ildi

          https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/2018/03/11/interracial-marriage-and-church-doctrine-by-matthew-raphael-johnson/

          Johnson’s article contains many other links as well. Since our click-through rate is typically not very high, we felt that it was especially important to draw attention to his disturbing ideas on the superiority of the white race and the wrongness of interracial marriage, even in cases where both parties are Orthodox. As a “priest” he would refuse marriage to an interracial Orthodox couple.

        • Natureboi

          Would or should Jack refuse to make a cake for an adulterous wedding?
          Why would adultery not be a “problem” for Jack?

        • eric

          “I don’t like the current options” does not resolve legal disputes. By all means go ahead and look for other options. But while you do that, right now, gays and blacks and other traditionally
          discriminated-againstgroups will be going in to bakeries to order wedding cakes, and the law needs to be clear on whether the bakers can refuse them service based on the bakers’ religious beliefs. So for right now and until you discover whatever magical happy puppy solution you want to pretend is out there (and which nobody has found since, oh, at least the 1960s), do you support “yes they can refuse service” or “no they can’t refuse service”?

          (i.e. Either you have civil rights or you have religious expression, but you can’t have both.).

          I consider the legal requirement of equal service to be as close to ‘both’ as we can get. A racist restaurateur is legally entitled to express his religious hatred of blacks, as long as he serves them. Likewise, an anti-gay baker is welcome to express to his customers that his religion views homosexuality as immoral, as long as he serves them the same way he would serve straight customers.

        • skl

          By all means go ahead and look for other options. But while you do that, right now, gays and blacks and other traditionally discriminated-against groups will be going in to bakeries to order wedding cakes…
          So for right now… do you support “yes they can refuse service” or “no they can’t refuse service”?

          Right now, I guess I haven’t decided.
          Right now, the SCOTUS hasn’t decided either.

          I consider the legal requirement of equal service to be as close to ‘both’ as we can get. … an anti-gay
          baker is welcome to express to his customers that his religion views
          homosexuality as immoral, as long as he serves them the same way he would serve straight customers.

          I’m wondering how this equal service would play out. I suppose for truly equal service, the baker would be required to give to each and every customer some amount of approval or disapproval as to the morality of the particular occasion for their cupcake consumption. And of course, equal moralizing on cake consumption, too.

        • eric

          Don’t make up absurd straw men. It would play out just the way it did in the South after segregation was outlawed. A lot of shop owners would grumpily and angrily serve customers they didn’t want to serve, and would be perfectly legal in their grumpiness. No, the state isn’t going to require people serve with a smile, or approve of their customers, or whatever.

          It’s statements like this that make right-wingers laughed at. The idea that the government is going to force conservatives to like gays or say approving things about them is a common trope in right-wing circles, but one that has no basis in law, in demands by gay rights activists, or in the past history of desegregation.

        • skl

          So you’re saying the baker could publicly launch
          into jeremiads in the gay couple’s faces, and maybe add some related condemnatory scripture to the packing box, and it all would be legal.

          Maybe the baker would go for that.

        • eric

          Yes…as long as he bakes them a cake.

          See how easy it is to tell the difference between religious expression and serving a customer?

          Why, this is so simple that it’s almost like the people confusing the two are just covering their desire to discriminate against gays. It’s almost like nobody could confuse baking a cake, off-site, days before the actual wedding and ‘participating in’ the wedding, they just say that to cover their bigotry. Gee, I wonder if that could be it.

        • skl

          It’s almost like nobody could confuse baking a cake, off-site, days before the actual wedding and ‘participating in’ the wedding…

          It’s almost like nobody could confuse fulfilling a commission to write a wedding reception song with pro-gay marriage lyrics, off-site, days
          before the actual wedding and ‘participating in’ the wedding…

        • Natureboi

          What is accomplished by denying gays anything?

        • Natureboi

          <blockquote(i.e. Either you have civil rights or you have religious expression, but you can’t have both.).

          Please define religious “expression.”

        • I Came To Bring The Paine

          We’re all confident that you’re full of shit.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          See also the current movie Green Book:

          https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_book

        • Gosh, I just love how Hollywood takes a story about black people, that should be centered on them and their historical experience, and made it all about the white dude accompanying them.

        • How many times have you seen the rejoinder?? Could he have legally and ethically said that to a mixed-race couple? If not, then why to a same-sex couple?

        • skl

          He would never say such a thing to a mixed-race couple. Unless they were the same sex.

        • John Pieret

          How do you know that?

        • skl

          Show me convincing evidence that this Christian baker would say such a thing.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Max Doubt

          “Show me convincing evidence that this Christian baker would say such a thing.”

          The evidence is that he turned away another couple because he’s a bigot.

        • John Pieret

          You made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you.

        • skl

          I’ll continue to make the claim until you can prove the claim false.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’ll continue to make the claim until you can prove the claim false.

          That’s not how logic and reality work, jebus-sucker…

        • John Pieret

          IOW, you are not arguing honestly here. I am not surprised …

        • Right. So he’s a hypocrite.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        And nobody ever questioned that he had that power. He wasn’t even invited to the wedding, let alone forced to participate.

        • skl

          See my comments elsewhere on this blog about “participation.”

        • bekar
        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Selling a cake is not participation, no matter how many times you claim it is.
          Tell the baker to get over himself

        • Gary Whittenberger

          But selling a cake with “Gay Marriage is Wrong” is also not participating in the opinion of the customer either, so the gay baker should sell that cake. Opinions don’t need to match.

        • Jill F

          A person or business can’t be forced to write something or probably create any design they don’t want to- on a cake, a T-shirt, a sign, anything. That violates their right to free speech. That wasn’t an issue in the case.

          Still, I think the couple should have gone to a different baker.

        • Ummm… yes, actually, they can. If you offer a service that, say, prints fliers, you are not allowed to turn down a customer just because you have a philosophical disagreement. After all, plenty of people in the South had (still have) issues with serving people of color. They had to be forced to do it, under the law.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          JF1: A person or business can’t be forced to write something or probably create any design they don’t want to- on a cake, a T-shirt, a sign, anything. That violates their right to free speech. That wasn’t an issue in the case.

          GW1: They CAN be forced to, but we aren’t discussing their capability. We are discussing whether they should be penalized or not for refusing to provide a service to some people that they already provide to other people. The message does not belong to the merchant; it belongs to the customer. So there is no violation of free speech.

          JF1: Still, I think the couple should have gone to a different baker.

          GW1: Still, I think the baker should have produced the cake requested by the couple. Service does not and should not require viewpoint agreement.

      • He only wanted the power to not participate in
        the celebration of SSM.

        Then it sucks to be him. He advertises that he makes cakes for M, so he’s expected to make cakes for any kind of M, including SSM.

        • skl

          In his view, there’s only one kind of M.

        • John Pieret

          His “view” doesn’t count, the law does.

        • skl

          But the Constitutional application of the
          law has not been “finally” decided.

          If and when it is decided by the Supreme Court, it will
          likely be a 5-4 decision.

          And the “dialog” will continue.

        • John Pieret

          Then why all this ridiculous logic-chopping you have done here? If you’re hoping the Supreme Court is going to rule that Christians are immune from the laws that apply to everyone else, then just say so.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Yes, there is. It’s called marriage. And he sells cakes for weddings, so he shouldn’t have a proble selling a wedding cake to anyone.

      • Otto

        Bigot landlords don’t want black people to be homeless, they only want the power to not participate in housing black people.

        • skl

          I’m confident the baker in question sold to blacks – homeless or otherwise.

        • Michael Neville

          So he wasn’t a racist bigot, just a homophobic bigot. That puts his hatred in a much better light. :þ

        • Otto

          I am confident some people are fine with blacks, they only are interested in discriminating against Jews…or women…or gay people.

  • lady_black

    I have yet to see any wedding cake with a slogan on it of any kind. It seems most couples want their wedding cake to be about them, not some irrelevant ideology.

    • TheBookOfDavid

      This scenario would be an ideal opportunity for a baker to exercise some artistic license, and change the ironically named Freedom Outpost’s original slogan to appropriately reflect their intent. Something like: “Fill your cakehole with hatred.”

      • Gary Whittenberger

        So, the baker is entitled to refuse service to any customer with whom he disagrees on any opinion?

  • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

    It’s been seven years that same sex marriage has been legal in New York where my wife and I live. It’s been 5 years that same sex marriage been legal in New Jersey where we were married. Neither of those has “disrupted” our marriage in the slightest.

  • Damien Priestly

    SSM sure brings out the troll(s)…I’m not even going to scroll down to laugh at the anti-SSM idiocy !!

  • evodevo

    Well, my question always is, will this Xtian baker sell a cake to someone who is divorced and remarrying? Or does he quiz potential hetero customers on whether they have committed adultery? ‘Cause the founder of their religion said no divorce at all, anytime, anywhere … So, what about it, Xtians? (And remember, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality – (granted, he was an orthodox Jew and Leviticus goes without saying, but still…).

    • Greg G.

      Do they check to see if the bride-to-be is a virgin?

      • Gary Whittenberger

        Why must the opinions on social issues of the merchant and the customer have to match? Just bake the damn cake!

    • Well, after all, that’s what happened in the Kim Davis (Kentucky county clerk) case. She was many times divorced, so she disqualified herself from the same-sex marriage license issue …

      Whoops! Sorry, my bad. No, she went ahead with the hypocrisy. Kinda like in the Colorado baker case.

    • Gary Whittenberger

      I believe the viewpoints and opinions regarding marriage and religion are irrelevant to the economic exchange. The baker has probably made cakes expressing all kinds of opinions. Why should he reject messages with opinions which differ from his own? This is known as “viewpoint discrimination.” I think it is just as unethical as racial discrimination.

      • Raging Bee

        The baker has probably made cakes expressing all kinds of opinions.

        And you guess this how? I’ve NEVER seen cakes on display in ANY bakery “expressing all kinds of opinions;” it’s all been nothing more than “Happy [whichever occasions one normally bakes cakes for]!” if anything at all. Recently they’ve been able to print photo-images in colored frosting, but that’s images, not opinions.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Every message on a cake implies an opinion of a customer. It shouldn’t matter if the baker’s opinion is different from the customer’s. The opinion and the message belong to the customer, not to the baker.

        • Natureboi

          The opinion and the message belong to the customer, not to the baker.

          Bingo.

          The “message” argument is a desperate excuse to victimize the persecutor.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Yes, I think that is correct. The baker is guilty of unethical (I think also illegal) discrimination.

  • rationalobservations?

    Equality in marriage is not a “gay issue” – it is a social and civil rights issue.

    • agreed

    • There will never be true marriage equality until disabled people can marry without losing their disability benefits.

      • rationalobservations?

        The free choice of entering into the contract of lawful marriage is open to all disabled people. If that alters their status and right to claim benefits it is not restricting their social and civil rights.
        Living with, and being financially supported by: a spouse alters the status of all able bodied or disabled citizens – so no prejudice or restriction of civil rights is involved.

        • So I should lose my income and medical coverage and my financial independence because I got married? And all because I was born with a disability?

          You’re disgusting.

        • rationalobservations?

          I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but if you live in the USA – marriage does not automatically have any effect upon disability benefits.

          Quote:
          “If you are receiving Social Security disability benefits under your own work record (meaning you are the disabled worker), then getting married will not affect your benefit payments. This is the case no matter whether your future spouse works, receives disability benefits, or has no income.”
          https://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page6-37.html

          In the UK your circumstances will always influence the state support that you recieve:

          Quote:
          “Getting married may affect your disability benefits in a variety of ways. This is largely dependent on what type of benefits you receive—Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).

          If you receive SSI benefits, you likely already know that eligibility is determined based on your income and financial resources. Once you get married, the SSA will “deem” a portion of your spouse’s income to your record. Essentially, this means that they will consider your future husband or wife’s income to be your income as well. This may significantly reduce your monthly payment or even cause the SSA to terminate your benefits altogether.

          It is important to note that, if you live with your significant other but are not yet married, the SSA may still decide to deem some of your partner’s income to your record. Currently, the SSA does not deem between same-sex couples even if they are married, registered domestic partners, or have a civil union license.

          None of that is discrimination in the matter of your freedom to enter into cohabitation or lawful marriage with a partner you are free to choose.

          Nothing “disgusting” within the statement of true facts. If anyone is unfit and unable to work for their own support – it is only the civilised response of the state (on the tax payers behalf) to offer support or supplement the support offered by a less abled person’s partner or spouse.

          I fail to understand your grounds for claiming inequality with other citizens when there appears to be no difference in the law relating to your ability to enter into lawful marriage with another man or woman of your choice?

          The matter of your support rests upon your own decisions in your free personal choice of who you wish to contribute to support you – a loving partner/spouse or the tax paying citizens via an egalitarian state.

          Expecting to “have your cake and eat” it appears to be somewhat misguided to say the least.

          Your hysteria and name calling are not appreciated and do nothing to advance your case or excuse your position of demanding cake ownership and consumption…

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mcCzpmmD9Ig/UZFWvl3KH6I/AAAAAAAAAoM/xWWtosgpsXE/s1600/cake+eat.jpg

        • You’re full of shit. I’m ON DISABILITY IN THE US, AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD DIRECTLY THAT IF I MARRY I LOSE ALL BENEFITS.

        • Does this predicted benefit loss also apply if you marry someone who is also disabled? Just asking.

          In Australia, a healthy marriage partner can apply for Carer’s Benefits if they have to help care for a disabled person – even their marriage partner.

          I am also puzzled by your fury. I thought that the US Constitution guaranteed Freedom Of Speech?
          Unless one has fasted for a lengthy period, any human being is sure to have their lower intestine packed by waste matter.

          In humans, the small intestine is about 6 meters or 20 feet long and the large intestine is about 1.5 meters or 5 feet long.
          So the only ones able to make the claim that they are NOT full of shit, are Breatharians and those on a long fast.

          Speaking of fasting- “Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, and is
          observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting to commemorate the
          first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief.

          https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/keep-calm-im-only-here-to-stir-the-pot-.jpg

        • If I marry a disabled partner, our benefits would be consolidated, and we’d get maybe $100 more than a single person would get. So that would take me from $770/mo for just me, to $870/mo for me and a disabled partner and we’d get it jointly. As in, I would lose my financial independence completely. It’s ridiculous.

        • rationalobservations?

          Most of the living expenses are the same for two as for one. One rent, one utilities costs etc.
          Your demand for superior treatment to all other citizens appears unfounded.
          You have my sympathy but fail to make a case for better treatment than other citizens.
          I pity any potential spouse you consider to be only a financial consideration.

        • It’s not a “demand for superior treatment”, dumbass. It’s a demand for EQUALITY.

          If a nondisabled couple can have two incomes, a disabled couple should be allowed the same. Period.

        • rationalobservations?

          What is stopping you from earning an income and marrying someone who also is also earning an income? If your want parity with your fellow citizens who it appears currently support you – it is in your hands. Disabled and non-disabled couples are exactly equal in the choice to EARN a single or double income and non-disabled married couples often opt for one income as they don’t get any free ride from the state and the tax payer.

          Demanding a free ride and double support from your fellow citizens is not “equality” but preferential treatment over those who earn and support themselves so get over yourself and start on line trading or some other endeavor that would earn you income, respect and self respect.

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mcCzpmmD9Ig/UZFWvl3KH6I/AAAAAAAAAoM/xWWtosgpsXE/s1600/cake+eat.jpg

        • What’s stopping.. I’M DISABLED TO THE POINT WHERE I CAN’T FUCKING WORK.

          I am ENTITLED TO disability income, under FEDERAL LAW.

          That shouldn’t change because I get married.

        • rationalobservations?

          If you chose to alter your personal circumstances you chose to alter the state’s level of obligation to support you.
          If you are correct in your assessment of unregulated entitlement under US Federal Law, you will continue to receive that entitlement and your constant demands are redundant.

          If you chose to marry I wish you all happiness and if you chose solitary independence I hope you will be satisfied by that choice.

          You are free to chose.

        • Some couples in Australia live is separate rooms just to maintain their level of benefits. Formal marriage is not the over-riding institution that it once was.

          I like the hidden doorways (revolving bookcases?) in spy movies, and comedy movies – which can facilitate secret egress between rooms. This is just one method of having a secret connection between two bedrooms.
          (US Doomday Preppers are certain to have many ingenious systems for secret access systems.)

          https://hiddendoorstore.com/rotating-bookcase/

        • Also:

          “I am also puzzled by your fury. I thought that the US Constitution guaranteed Freedom Of Speech?”

          The person I was yelling at was ablesplaining (wrongly!) about a benefits system I’ve had to navigate since the age of 18. Before that, my parents were in control.

          “Unless one has fasted for a lengthy period, any human being is sure to have their lower intestine packed by waste matter.”

          “Full of shit” is a metaphor. I was calling shenanigans on the ablesplaining.

        • My post was an attempt to calm down the level of emotion on display, and not to cast any actual criticism in either direction.

          Media “discussions” have a habit of ‘ramping-up’ heated exchanges.

          Certainly, the person who has personal experience in a prevailing, unpleasant state-of-affairs will have greater knowledge than one who is just looking on from outside (and providing unsupported opinion).

          My own education does not lack instruction in the meaning, and use, of metaphors. But (and THIS viewpoint seems to be lacking in most) I have a swift ability to analysis the actual wording contained in figures-of-speech, and expose their humor content.
          (The mention of Ramadan should not be taken seriously, nor should it be perceived as an actual suggested undertaking!)

          My apologies if my intent has been misinterpreted. ( I did LINK an image attempting to suggest this motive. )

          https://youtu.be/ijJCg2UE8f4

        • rationalobservations?

          It looks like the USA and UK are similar in offering freedom of choice to the disabled citizens. You can live alone and be supported by all your fellow citizens or be supported and loved by only one of your fellow citizens.
          There appears to be no discrimination involved in the freedom of choice available to you as many able-bodied individuals exchange financial independence for loving married partnership and the support of a spouse.
          You are free to chose just as most women and many men who give up work upon marriage have chosen for centuries.
          Your mercenary attitude appears greedy and self obsessed.
          You can’t have your cake and eat it…
          I wonder who would wish to marry someone so mercenary and self obsessed?

        • Oh, but an able-bodied couple is allowed to have TWO incomes?

          I should 100% be entitled to MY OWN FINANCIAL RESOURCES.

        • rationalobservations?

          You are fully entitled (and allowed) to earn your OWN FINANCIAL RESOURCES.

          There is no discrimination in the matter of a married or cohabiting couple having one. two or more sources of income and nothing stopped the many disabled entrepreneurs from earning a very significant income on their own or in partnership with others.

          What you are not entitled to is a double benefit that you do not qualify for and have not earned.

          No one could be anything but sympathetic to you but your demand for superiority over your fellow citizens has yet to be justified or excused by you.

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mcCzpmmD9Ig/UZFWvl3KH6I/AAAAAAAAAoM/xWWtosgpsXE/s1600/cake+eat.jpg

        • You’re ableist.

        • rationalobservations?

          You are wrong and your vile as hominem is the sign of a failed argument.

          You are being treated fairly and no one is stopping you from choosing your own destiny.

          You just can’t have your cake and eat it.

      • rationalobservations?

        Perhaps you think that there will also never be true equality for the unemployed while they cannot get a job without losing their dole payments?
        Perhaps you also think that there is no equality for the elderly while they cannot die without loseing their state pension benefits?

        You have a puzzling point of view that fails to support the claim that those who change their financial status are somehow being discriminated against when that change is recognised?

        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mcCzpmmD9Ig/UZFWvl3KH6I/AAAAAAAAAoM/xWWtosgpsXE/s1600/cake+eat.jpg

        • If the job doesn’t pay an actual living wage, the worker is entitled to benefits.

          Dead people are, you know, DEAD, and not entitled to benefits.

          And you’re just an asshole.

        • rationalobservations?

          You write: “If the job doesn’t pay an actual living wage, the worker is entitled to benefits.”
          True.
          How much are you earning and what is the source of your income?
          How much is your proposed spouse earning and what is his/her source of income?
          Have you declared your income (like everyone else) and applied for supplementary support from other tax payers via the state?

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mcCzpmmD9Ig/UZFWvl3KH6I/AAAAAAAAAoM/xWWtosgpsXE/s1600/cake+eat.jpg

        • What part of I’M DISABLED AND UNABLE TO WORK did you fail to understand?

        • rationalobservations?

          I have worked with many disabled colleagues and have working disabled members of my family.

          I would remind you of the much missed and most severely disabled prof Stephen Hawking who worked and contributed to mankind all his life.

          You remain free to chose your lifestyle but cannot expect to have your cake and eat it…

  • Doug1943

    I don’t think the example is a valid one.
    Baking a cake with the message ‘Gay Marriage is Wrong’ is not an equivalent to baking a cake to celebrate an event against which the baker holds deep convictions (I don’t care whether they are ‘religious’ convictions or not).

    A better example would be asking a Muslim baker to bake a cake celebrating Israeli Independence Day, or a Jewish baker to bake a cake celebrating Hitler’s Birthday.

    The point is: why do any of these things? If you can get your cake, celebrating a gay wedding or a Nazi birthday or Israeli Independence day baked elsewhere, then get it baked elsewhere. Why deliberately cause someone pain? (Unless — as I suspect is usually the case in situations like this — you are a nasty, small-minded person with the Persecutor complex.)

    The world is full of people with conflicting beliefs, some of them wrong and irrational and even hateful (from my point of view). The passage of time is eliminating many of these fairly rapidly, at least in the civilized countries of the West. Let time do its work, and while it does so, live and let live.

    • Gary Whittenberger

      But why should the baker deliberately cause pain to the customer by refusing the request? The opinions of either party are irrelevant to the economic exchange. Just bake the damn cake! It’s not personal. Don’t take it personally.

      • rationalobservations?

        In the UK a similar case was judged against the bigoted bakers who were fined. The news caused the general public to boycott the bigots who quickly went out of business.
        A matter of some pride for all fair minded and egalitarian Brits no doubt?

        It’s a shame that bigots rule in some regions of the USA.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          In some parts of the US if the baker were to be fined, he would get more business instead of less. It depends on the area. Still, in my opinion as long as a “good customer” is involved, it is morally wrong for the baker to refuse service and this should be illegal.

    • The baker doesn’t bake cakes celebrating Hitler’s birthday (though you could of course use any of their baked products in this way at home if you wanted). But the baker does bake wedding cakes. He was discriminating based on who the customers were, and that is against Colorado state law.

      Is it the Colorado law you’re arguing against?

      • Doug1943

        Bob — I haven’t looked closely at the Colorado Law … I’m just making the argument that (1) as a matter of decent social behavior, we should avoid causing other people to be unhappy … exceptions made for really evil people like Nazis, but this guy is almost certainly just a simple-minded fundamentalist. Most of them are not bad people — in their day to day life, they’ve probably got the same ethics as most atheists do.
        (2) Even if he were an evil Nazi, I think it’s a very bad idea to expand the power of the state to coerce behavior. That applies to baking cakes, saluting the flag, saying the pledge of allegiance, and so on. (You can make a better case for the latter, in fact, since it could be argued that it reinforces social solidarity, but by now it’s a moot point. In any case, it’s still wrong.)

        And there’s a third point: I personally admire contrarians, people who swim against the stream, who show moral courage by standing up for their beliefs, however silly or misguided those beliefs are. So I share the near-universal annoyance at the knock on the door which reveals a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but … I also admire their courage — it took guts for their young people to refuse say the Pledge of Allegiance several decades ago, and it takes guts for their adherents in authoritarian states to refuse to knuckle under to the ghastly rulers of those states now.

        The US, as it begins to slip from its position as unchallengable Number One in the world, is going to see a lot of internal chaos. The Social Justice Warrior insanity is just the current manifestation — we may well see a right wing reaction, just as McCarthyism followed the fashionable pro-Soviet trend among American intellectuals in the 30s and during the war. I admire people who have the moral courage to resist the baying mobs.

        • I think it’s a very bad idea to expand the power of the state to coerce behavior. That applies to baking cakes, saluting the flag, saying the pledge of allegiance, and so on.

          I sympathize, but imagine if that attitude had been applied toward civil rights in the 1960s. George Wallace wants segregation? Well, that’s a bit nutty, but who am I to impose?

          And there’s a third point: I personally admire contrarians, people who swim against the stream, who show moral courage by standing up for their beliefs, however silly or misguided those beliefs are.

          The problem is worse when those “contrarians” become a large fraction of the population.

          the knock on the door which reveals a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but … I also admire their courage

          But there’s no harm involved when they want to share a copy of the Watchtower or they refuse to have birthdays or salute the flag. When a baker wants to marginalize homosexuals, that causes harm. I’ll agree that it’s not much harm, but discriminating does cross the line from benign or odd to harmful.

        • Doug1943

          For what it’s worth, I was a civil rights activist in Texas and Tennessee in the first half of the 60s. If Black people in the South at that time had faced the equivalent of what gay people in Colorado faced … no one, Black or white, would have even noticed.

          I promise you that we would not have hunted around for the odd white baker who refused to serve Blacks. The system of legally-enforced racial segregation caused enormous harm. I’m actually sorry that it had to be attacked by expanding the power of the national government, to counter the harm done by state and local governments, but it was the only way to break the great power of the segregationists. (When we sat in at Weingarten’s supermarket, or picketed Foley’s Department store, or ‘stood in’ in the lines for movie tickets, we were — whether we knew it or not — doing a favor to the capitalists who ran those businesses. Like all capitalists, their real concern was making a dollar — our agitation, and the laws that finally got passed, gave them the excuse they needed to open up to all customers. This Christian baker — in liberal Colorado — was risking his business for his religious beliefs: I’ll bet he would have lost far more customers than he might have gained.) So getting those laws passed then was a necessary evil — like conscription in World War II.

          I don’t care about ‘principle’. In principle, if abstract justice is to be served, regardless of the consequences, then all white people should leave the United States — they’re all (and 31/32 of me, when I lived in the US) living on stolen Native American land. But we have to look at practicalities, and balance the new harms done by proposed solutions.

          However, I think, in the US, you have history on your side. Not long from now, you will risk your livelihood, and maybe even face a jail sentence, if you hurt someone’s feelings. ( The ‘right’ someone, of course. Hurting the feelings of redneck and Christians will be okay. Nor will any Muslim baker will have to bake a cake celebrating Israeli Independence Day, nor anyone be forced to offer their services to help neoNazis celebrate Hitler’s birthday. Justice is always justice for the well-connected.)

        • Not long from now, you will risk your livelihood, and maybe even face a jail sentence, if you hurt someone’s feelings.

          Despite the First Amendment?

        • Doug1943

          Well, the First Amendment, like all nice things on paper, depends on human beings to interpret it.

          It didn’t save Gene Debs when he spoke out against going into World War I — Woodrow Wilson saw that he was put away for ten years (and then refused to pardon him after the war — it took a Republican president, Warren Harding, to do that — and then to invite Debs to the White House for a chat after he was released. Talk about the ironies of history.)

          It didn’t save the Socialist Workers Party, again jailed for being against going to war, plus having their paper denied second class mailing privileges — this under FDR.

          Nor did it save the Communists, sent to prison for their beliefs [no doubt awful but that’s not the point], not their actions — a friend of mine was imprisoned under the Smith Act, not for any action, but for his Communist beliefs. (Later released when the Supreme Court, Zeus be praised, ruled it unconstitutional.)

          It didn’t keep the John Birch Society from disrupting a meeting we had organized in Houston, during the 1964 election, to hear from all sides, including the Communists … yes, the disruptors were actually arrested, but in court, their lawyer stood up and uttered just one sentence — “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” [quoting Republican candidate Barry Goldwater], and that got them acquitted.

          And when the cops wanted to silence Houston’s leading Black agitator, Lee Otis Johnson, they did it by having an undecover stoolie buy a single marijuana cigarette from him — and the jury obligingly gave him 30 years for it. And when my friend Larry Schacht wore some fatigues, playing an American soldier during some anti-war guerilla theatre, he got a year in prison for impersonation, as if anyone who was there thought he was a real American soldier.

          Okay, these are all ancient history now, and the ones I personally know about took place in a particular backward part of the US, Texas … but human nature doesn’t change. Many people like to silence, and if possible wreck the lives of, people they don’t like.

          If you work for a company and the boss doesn’t like your political views, or thinks they might hurt profits, the First Amendment won’t save you from being fired. (A previous wife’s mother lost her job as a social worker in New York City during the witchhunt — again, not for anything she did, but for what she said and believed.)

          Now look — you’re talking to someone who joined the ACLU at the age of 16 and is still a Free Speech Fundamentalist. I love the First Amendment, long may it live … but I don’t have illusions about a piece of writing — by dead white heterosexual homo/trans-phobic wealthy slaveowners, don’t forget! — to hold back the zeitgeist.

          Back during the McCarthy days, as I recall, there were repeated public opinion polls along the lines of “Do you think people should have the right to openly advocate [scary/unpleasant/hateful ideology of the moment]?” and the results were always dismaying. I doubt things have changed very much.

          Note also: you can implement a pretty thoroughly authoritarian system, within a formally democratic framework, so long as the courts will do your bidding. You just take your victim to court and the judge bankrupts them. That’s how SIngapore works and how many people would like the US to work. Of course the coming bankruptcy of the whole country may cut across this growing trend, not that this gives me any pleasure.

        • And (seeing the problem from the other side) the anti-gay baker would declare that the First Amendment supports him as well.

        • Doug1943

          I think the First Amendment should have as wide as possible applicability.

          I think it’s dangerous to let the state regulate behavior. Of course, we have to do it, mainly, by forbidding violent behavior.

          So … forbid behavior that hurts others physically, but think ten times before forbidding behavior that just hurts others’ feelings.

          As an atheist, I have hurt a lot of feelings, since it’s hard to respect gullibility, stupidity, etc — especially when I was young and felt
          superior to Jesus-believers and New Age airheads. I probably wouldn’t be so abrasive now, but I’m glad I wasn’t put in jail for hurting
          their feelings.

          Of course, this sort of restraint on the part of the state is not natural. In large parts of the world — the less civilized parts — blasphemy and apostasy can be, and are, punished quite severely.

          And, at bottom, the Puritan witchburner and the Islamist fanatic and the atheist-progressive Persecutor share a lot in common: it feels GOOD to see those wicked sinners suffer!

        • Raging Bee

          How do you know all three of those characters have the same feelings and motives? Can you read their minds, even after they’ve been dead for more than a century?

        • Doug1943

          Hmmm…. they’re all composites … and only the Puritan witchburners are dead, although I’ve met a few Southern Baptists who have a witchburner inside them, who would love to get out. The other two are all too alive, and with us right now.

          As for ‘reading their minds’ — we all ‘read minds’ all the time. When I see early photographs of grinning mobs around the burnt body of Black man, I’m pretty sure that they are not happy because of, say, the same reasons that a crowd of football team supporters is happy when their team scores a goal.

          Of course, in both cases, we can understand, or think we do, the feelings of others, because we all share, in some way, the possibilities of these same feelings, which are biologically-rooted, like all deep motivations. It’s the human animal, the naked ape, the tailless chimpanzee — and these are feelings-motivating-behaviors that helped the genes of our ancestors reproduce themselves. Group solidarity, merciless persecution of our enemies, joy in their suffering, these are natural human feelings, common to Nazis, libertarians, Social Justice Warriors alike.

          We all have arms and legs, and we all have brains, and they have evolved due to natural selection. We’re all alike, at the base.

          Civilization, among those human groups that have achieved some of it, sometimes tries to moderate and harness and tame these feelings, and a good thing too. But usually the scope of the in-group, to whom the restraints of civilization are seen to apply, is limited to one’s race, or nation, or tribe, or religion, or political affinity group. Overall, the species progresses when this scope expands. Perhaps some day, for everyone, it will include everyone, but we’re a long way from that place at the moment.

          Radical Leftists are not any different, at bottom, than anyone else. Of course they enjoy seeing their enemies suffer, and of course they enjoy group-think and the pleasures of being in a mob, and of course they cover this up with indignant self-righteousness.

          They’re only human.

        • What are you smoking?

        • Raging Bee

          Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If that’s all you have, maybe you should just shut up and go back to bed.

        • ildi

          Oh, do go on with your “Dear Muslima” schtick.

        • Raging Bee

          And there’s a third point: I personally admire contrarians, people who swim against the stream, who show moral courage by standing up for their beliefs…

          So you admire small-time bullies who “stand up for their beliefs” by taking out their grudges on other people who have done no harm, just because those are the people he can hurt? That sounds both childish and spineless.

          I admire people who have the moral courage to resist the baying mobs.

          So people who take a stand against small-time bullying and unfair discrimination are “baying mobs” to you?

    • Kodie

      Time doesn’t do the work, it’s the pushing and pushing and getting smaller changes as we go. It’s not a matter of getting what you want elsewhere – if everyone is allowed to refuse, maybe they all will. Maybe what you want is limited, like a professional bakery in a small town, or a 5-stars-on-yelp bakery who baked a caked for your niece’s birthday and you have never tasted anything like it, and you must have a cake from that bakery for your wedding, nothing less will do.

      Haters are not allowed to kill people they hate, so they are involved in cultural manipulations to keep homosexuality suppressed. They think it’s a choice, they think if they make it difficult, no one will choose it, and they get to be happy thinking they’ve removed a poisonous element from society. Read the comments from some people, they are seriously misinformed and intolerant, and they are using whatever means they legally can keep homosexuality from being a viable “choice” for people. “Time” isn’t doing their work, either. They are pulling the strings to get the gears in motion to outlaw whatever they don’t like, what they are afraid of, and what they judge as sick. The funny thing is how it doesn’t make homosexuality go away, it just hides it, so maybe they (wish to) overturn the law by being difficult, but gay people will love each other and get married anyway. Regardless of the law, they would still have civil unions and family celebrations for couples in love as they had long before their marriages became legally equal with not even a verbal distinction between their marriage and a straight couple’s.

      Time didn’t do that on its own, so living and letting live just means people who do more for their cause get their way. You snooze and wait for someone else to do it for you, or just advise them all to chill and wait it out is … not thinking it through, to be kind.

      • Doug1943

        I think that that baker should bake the cake. I would try to explain to him why he should … not because of some law, but because it will make people happy. (Although I would be willing to bet a million dollars, if I had a million dollars, that he was targetted deliberately, and not because he is such a wonderful baker that his would-be customer just had to have a cake from him.)

        But this baker has deep, sincere beliefs about gay marriage. Like most of our deep beliefs, it’s not rooted in rationality. (Yes, atheists too have deep beliefs which are not rooted in rationality.) So let him alone.

        We sometimes need the state to coerce people to behave in a certain way.

        But … in the long run, none of us — gay or straight, white or black, male or female — will benefit from the unlimited expansion of the state’s ability to control how we act. We have to have the state, but it’s a dangerous master.

        Bakers bake cakes to celebrate events, among other things. Weddings, and other events. Hitler’s birthday is an event which, unfortunately, is celebrated by some people. I wouldn’t want a law to stop them from doing that, and I wouldn’t want a law to force someone to bake a cake celebrating it. Personally, I would be happy to have an event celebrating his blowing out his own brains, but I wouldn’t want to create a law to force a pro-Hitler baker to bake a cake to celebrate it. (It’s not that I don’t want to hurt his feelings … I might send him a photo of our celebration of Hitler’s suicide. I just don’t want to give a legislature any more power than is necessary to keep society running.

        Time is on the side of civilization.

        • But this baker has deep, sincere beliefs about gay marriage.

          True, though I wonder where they come from. The Bible has lots of marriage rules–rules against divorce, for example. Until I see evidence that he rejected customers based on a complete view of the Bible’s marriage rules, I will conclude that the homophobia came first, and Christianity was simply shanghaied into supporting his position. In other words, his religious views didn’t underlie the rejection.

    • Thanks4AllTheFish

      “The point is: why do any of these things? If you can get your cake, celebrating a gay wedding or a Nazi birthday or Israeli Independence day baked elsewhere, then get it baked elsewhere. Why deliberately cause someone pain? (Unless — as I suspect is usually the case in situations like this — you are a nasty, small-minded person with the Persecutor complex.)”

      By golly the baker (or hardware store owner, or pharmacist, etc.) could place a sign in their front window saying We don’t serve gays, lesbians or other deviants here.” That way the feelings of everyone concerned wouldn’t be hurt and the “others” could shop elsewhere. I think you’re on to something here.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5e0ebd3dd7f3b5407447797567e5dbd5ede6e2807ea3e7dd0335cbd90a7603a7.jpg

    • Raging Bee

      The world is full of people with conflicting beliefs, some of them wrong and irrational and even hateful (from my point of view). The passage of time is eliminating many of these fairly rapidly…

      No it isn’t, and never has. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.

    • Raging Bee

      The point is: why do any of these things? If you can get your cake, celebrating a gay wedding or a Nazi birthday or Israeli Independence day baked elsewhere, then get it baked elsewhere. Why deliberately cause someone pain?

      Who are you asking that question — the customer demanding fair treatment (for which they’re willing to pay, mind you), or the merchant getting pissy and using his position to pick on people he doesn’t like?

  • Gary Whittenberger

    GW1: I agree that the two scenarios are not symmetrical, but I don’t think it matters with respect to the correct response. See below.

    BS1: The “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cake was just hate speech. You’re welcome to say that, but you’re not entitled to demand someone else to do so.

    GW1: I disagree. The customer here is not demanding that the baker engage in hate speech or any speech at all. The speech here belongs to the customer, not to the baker. The baker would just be producing a product which includes the speech of the customer, with which the baker may or may not agree. The baker’s agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, and the baker should produce the requested cake. Bakers should not engage in viewpoint discrimination. It is not illegal for anyone to proclaim “Gay Marriage is Wrong.” That is just somebody’s opinion.

    GW1: If a customer is a “good customer,” then the baker should comply with the request of the customer. A good customer is a person who is able and willing to
    1. Pay prices for goods and services which are consistent with prices previously established for all customers for similar goods and services.
    2. Comply with community standards for health, safety, hygiene, and dress during transactions.
    3. Be fair to other customers during transactions.
    4. Refrain from disruptive, uncivil, or illegal behaviors during transactions.
    5. Refrain from inducing sellers to cooperate in illegal behaviors.

    BS1: What he’s confusing with marriage is sex. Sex is natural, and marriage is not.

    GW1: Gay sex is natural too.

  • Being a gay man myself, I support gay marriage wholeheartedly. However, I fail to see how “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” is hate speech. Sure, it’s a shitty, irrational thing to say, but it’s based on deeply-held (albeit incredibly stupid) beliefs.

    • That’s fine, but I think the point is that you probably can’t legally compel a baker to put that on a cake. Said another way, this isn’t parallel to asking a Christian baker to make a text-free cake for a SSM.

      • Well.. The cake doesn’t have to have text for it to be objectionable. If, for example, the gay couple asked for two husband figures to be placed on the cake, I could see how that could be objectionable.

        • I think we’re talking about a cake that could be used for a straight or a SSM wedding reception.

        • Raging Bee

          Yeah, just like we can all see how asking a racist baker to have mixed-race figures on a cake might be objectionable, right?

    • If you can’t understand how that’s hate speech, turn in your gay card.

      • LOL. I’m not a member of your “True Gays(TM” club so I have no card to turn in. Try actually providing a counter-argument next time.

        • Oh, so you’re just a traitor to the cause, then. Good to know.

          I say again, if you can’t understand how that’s hate speech, you’re too stupid to live.

        • Which cause would that be? Rabid virtue signalling?

        • Full legal and social equality. The freedom to exist without being harassed (or worse) by self-styled crusaders for GAWD. But you don’t give a fuck about that, do you?

        • I do. I don’t need your approval, so take your gatekeeping else where.

        • I do. And I have nothing to prove to irrational zealots like you.

    • Silverwolf13

      The baker should be free to make a “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cake if they want to, but nobody could be forced to buy it. The question is whether a gay baker be compelled to make a “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cake. That would be compelling hate speech.

      • Jill F

        It would violate the baker’s right to free speech by forcing the baker to write anything. It doesn’t have to be hate speech.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Even “Happy Birthday Jill F”??

        • Jill F

          I know Jehova’s Witnesses don’t do birthdays, and possibly some other religions also. So if they owned a bakery they might not do birthday cakes at all, for anyone. That’s not discrimination as long as they treat everyone the same.

  • rationalobservations?

    In the UK a similar case of discrimination on the part of a bakery resulted in accordance with anti discrimination laws. The Baker was fined.
    “Judges uphold ruling that Ashers Bakery discriminated against gay man by refusing to make cake with pro-gay marriage slogan”
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row

  • C_Alan_Nault

    ” It remains an open question how far “My religion demands that I not serve your kind” can go.”

    Actually, the Bible does not say that believers cannot serve homosexuals.

    It says:

    “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13)

    If someone is going to use their religion as the reason they will not provide service for homosexuals, they should be out there killing homosexuals as their holy book demands they do.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    If someone is going to use their religion & play the religion card as a reason for not having to provide a service, that person should be required to follow EVERY rule of that religion. If they use the Bible, there are 613 commandments they must follow. If they refuse to follow any of the commandments then they are demonstrating that their religious view is that the commandments are optional & so should be forced to provide the service.

    Is this bakery open on Saturday? That’s the Sabbath day!

    Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:13-15 )

    • The focused version works, too: insist that he take a biblical stand on just marriage. For example, Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuals, but he did reject divorce. Did this baker bake cakes for any second marriages? Did he make sure that there were no divorces??

      If he didn’t check, I’m calling hypocrisy on him.

    • eric

      Everybody’s religion is different. If there were a single consistent and demonstrable version of it, it would be called physics.