Patterico's Pontifications

8/14/2015

Christian Baker Ruled Against

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:06 am



[guest post by Dana]

Unsurprisingly, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that would make Jack Phillips, Christian baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, violate his religious beliefs by compelling him to provide wedding cakes for gay couples.

From the opinion:

This case juxtaposes the rights of complainants, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, under Colorado’s public accommodations law to obtain a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage against the rights of respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., and its owner, Jack C. Phillips, who contend that requiring them to provide such a wedding cake violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

As we’ve already seen, the rights of Christian vendors are becoming subordinate to the rights of gay couples to purchase wedding cakes or other standard wedding fare from any vendor they choose, regardless of the business owner’s religious beliefs.

Mr. Phillips said that creating a wedding cake for a gay couple would force him to convey a message with which he disagrees, but the court said in its opinion that the bakery is a public accommodation and thus forbidden by Colorado law from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

As a result, “a reasonable observer would understand that Masterpiece’s compliance with the law is not a reflection of its own beliefs,” said the court.

“We conclude that the act of designing and selling a wedding cake to all customers free of discrimination does not convey a celebratory message about same-sex weddings likely to be understood by those who view it,” said Judge Daniel M. Taubman in the 64-page opinion.

“We further conclude that, to the extent that the public infers from a Masterpiece wedding cake a message celebrating same-sex marriage, that message is more likely to be attributed to the customer than to Masterpiece,” said the opinion.

Phillips, like other Christian wedding vendors, believes that there is a difference between serving gays (which he does) and providing a service specifically for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

However, the court did not see it that way:

[T]he court said that the bakery’s distinction between serving gay customers and baking a gay wedding cake is “one without a difference.”

“But for their sexual orientation, Craig and Mullins would not have sought to enter into a same-sex marriage, and but for their intent to do so, Masterpiece would not have denied them its services,” said the opinion.

From Phillips’ team:

“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith. Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views,” said ADF senior legal counsel Jeremy Tedesco in a statement. “Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms. We will discuss further legal options.”

As it now stands, if Phillips refuses to provide a cake for a gay wedding, he will face fines. Also, he was ordered to “take remedial measures, including comprehensive staff training and alteration to the company’s policies” as well as being required to submit to monthly compliance checks.

–Dana

395 Responses to “Christian Baker Ruled Against”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. I have no doubt that happyfeet will endorse the government’s use of reeducation camps. Soon, Gulags.

    Because, really, can we allow people to exist who think unapproved thoughts?

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  3. Also, he was ordered to “take remedial measures, including comprehensive staff training and alteration to the company’s policies” as well as being required to submit to monthly compliance checks.

    Since the left is in the forefront of making Islamofascists run roughshod over the West, including the US, and, at the same time, are first in line in harassing people like Jack Philips, if there does have to be Nidal Hassans, etc, embedded throughout society, then, hell, can such fanatics at least try to limit their destruction to liberals. They’re too stupid to notice or care.

    Mark (9abec5)

  4. “The floggings will continue until morale improves.”

    I don’t care about gay marriage but I predicted this and my leftist lawyer son ridiculed the idea that anything like this would ever happen. That was nearly ten years ago.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  5. The bakery now should put up a sign that says, “All profits from gay wedding cakes will be donated to the Westboro Baptist Church”.

    Gerald A, fortunately it does not work like that, unless there is a public accommodation law which forbids viewpoint discrimination. I say “fortunately” because I would not want a Jewish printer to be compelled to print Nazi leaflets or a black tailor to make KKK hoods.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. just this morning i ordered a hummingbird cake from magnolia here in ny for my friend who’s going away I’m a very strong supporter of bakery-americans

    i don’t like government i try to fly under the radar

    i would be happy to give the guy in this story some helpful pointers

    happyfeet (7b1a9e)

  7. the rights of Christian vendors are becoming subordinate to the rights of gay couples to purchase wedding cakes

    LOL. This is a major civil rights issue. Right up there with Brown v Board of Education. God forbid, bakers will have to make cakes. Next stop, Auschwitz.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  8. “LOL. This is a major civil rights issue.”

    carlitos – LOL! Free exercise of religion, especially Islam, has always been a major civil rights issue in this country. That is why it is in the Bill of Rights.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  9. What did public accommodation originally mean?

    JD (17fa76)

  10. The obvious immediate solution, which I understand that the bakery has already taken, is to decline to bake any wedding cakes, for anyone.

    The Dana who knew that this stuff would happen (f6a568)

  11. public accommodation means when a pikachu says hello i’d like a 5-layer hummingbird cake please you do NOT say I’m sorry we only do 3 layers

    what the hell is wrong with people

    happyfeet (7b1a9e)

  12. carlitos and Mr. Feets -It is easy to laugh at religious beliefs which you do not share. Ther government ordering people to violate them is fascism and now becoming enshrined as part of a rich tradition of American religion tolerance.

    LOL!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  13. Heart of Atlanta was a motel, JD. In Chicago, a dentist has been held to be one under the City’s disability accomodation ordinance (the patient had AIDS). I can’t wait to see a suit against a Reno prostitute by a lesbian to see if “that” is defined as a public accommodation.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Originally, public accommodation had a dramatically different meaning, if I recall correctly

    JD (17fa76)

  15. Really, carlitos? LOL? How full of compassion for people who believe they are being made to sin against their faith you are. Would you be LOL if a molem was forced to make bacon appetizers for a wedding? You seem to be a very callous person without regard or respect for the beliefs of others.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  16. An alternative would be to explain that making that wedding cake would be an offense to Allah. Gays aren’t going to sue Muslims, they only go after Christians.

    tweell (3d09de)

  17. Stop calling them gay. There is nothing gay about bullying other people.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  18. it is easy to laugh at religious beliefs which you do not share

    yes it is you are correct


    The government ordering people to violate them is fascism and now becoming enshrined as part of a rich tradition of American religion tolerance.

    duh but two things:

    1. this is not my problem really

    2. conflating religious belief with this very very base anti-gay bigotry like how baker guy does is way more harmful to religious liberty than anything the government is doing

    happyfeet (7b1a9e)

  19. If devoutly religious bakers stopped baking gay wedding cakes there would be no more gay weddings.

    ERMAGAWD!!!!!

    LOL!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. 2. conflating religious belief with this very very base anti-gay bigotry like how baker guy does is way more harmful to religious liberty than anything the government is doing””

    LOL!

    Ignore the anti-religious bigotry of teh people attempting to force people to violate the principles of their faiths please. We do not talk of such things.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. conflating religious belief with this very very base anti-gay bigotry like how baker guy does is way more harmful to religious liberty than anything the government is doing

    happyfeet (7b1a9e) — 8/14/2015 @ 9:00 am

    If they just didn’t have their religious belief the government wouldn’t have to violate it. So they’re harming religious liberty. This is psycho Orwellian stuff.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  22. Gerald A, fortunately it does not work like that, unless there is a public accommodation law which forbids viewpoint discrimination. I say “fortunately” because I would not want a Jewish printer to be compelled to print Nazi leaflets or a black tailor to make KKK hoods.

    nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2015 @ 8:10 am

    I don’t want it to work like that either. A bakery or T-shirt maker or whatever should be allowed to decline to support some viewpoint they disapprove of.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  23. Religious beliefs are just too pesky to allow in Obama’s failamerica because people might get offended by them and teh Constitution provides a right for everybody not to be offended.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the Administration’s proposed Thought Crime amendment to the Constitution.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. Would you be LOL if a moslem was forced to make bacon appetizers for a wedding?
    Hoagie (f4eb27) — 8/14/2015 @ 8:42 am

    Yup.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  26. Tell ya this. If I was forced to bake a cake for some homo, or anyone, he’d be a fool to eat it. Never screw with the people who handle your food.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  27. Well carlitos, at least you are a consistent religious bigot, I’ll give ya that.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  28. @nk:I say “fortunately” because I would not want a Jewish printer to be compelled to print Nazi leaflets or a black tailor to make KKK hoods.

    This will never happen. Progressives do not apply principles, only identities. Bad people like Nazis or KKK members or people who oppose same sex marriage have no legal right to expression that any progressive respects.

    The argument you make here, that applying the same principle will lead to undesirable outcomes, is incomprehensible to a progressive. Their theories of rights are entirely based on outcomes and identities.

    Law as we know it is dead. We have returned to tribalism and Big Men.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  29. “it is easy to laugh at religious beliefs which you do not share

    yes it is you are correct”

    Unless of course, you are confronted by ISIS. In which case Mr. Feet would quickly be separated from his head.

    The totalitarian Carlitos has no problem laughing at Muslims – on the Internet, when he’s using a pseudonym. But he will certainly not go into a Muslim bakery to order a wedding cake. None of the gays will. Because they’re snide little cowards.

    If the gay fascists ever face off against the Islamic ones, the gays won’t last a minute.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99)

  30. Both sides are wrong.

    1. It is your wedding day. Buy your cake from someone who WANTS to bake your cake.

    2. It is not a sin to bake a cake. Cakes are nondenominational in terms of gay vs. straight. Now, if they ask you to perform the service as a minister of your church, then there can be a religious conflict.

    Mike S (89ec89)

  31. Tell ya this. If I was forced to bake a cake for some homo, or anyone, he’d be a fool to eat it. Never screw with the people who handle your food.

    Hoagie (f4eb27) — 8/14/2015 @ 9:35 am

    Except good Christians would never spit or smear shit into other people’s food. Idiots like Feet and Carlitos don’t grasp that it isn’t the Christians who will retaliate, it’s people who hate gays and have no religious or moral scruples restraining them.

    When I was in high school in the 1970’s, I knew a nasty bully boy who worked at a local burger joint. He boasted that when someone he didn’t like came in and placed an order- someone who looked like a “f*ggot” a word he used quite freely – he took the hamburger bun into the bathroom and wiped it on the rim of the toilet before putting it on the victim’s plate. I have no doubt he actually did that too. “They never even notice, because f*gs love the taste of sh*t,” he laughed.

    He was about as religious as Carlitos.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99)

  32. Colorado also has the court that ruled a bakery was correct in refusing to serve a Christian that was trying to get a cake with Bible verses stating marriage as the covenant between man and woman under God.

    They just like to persecute Christians. Disobedience is required.

    njrob (ce8248)

  33. Remember when those lifeguards tried to violate the religious freedom of the father whose daughter was drowning? On principle, I feel as much sympathy for him as I do for this baker.

    moral (48c03f)

  34. Hey mr. immoral – go peddle your equivalency elsewhere. Troll.

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  35. Tell ya this. If I was forced to bake a cake for some homo, or anyone, he’d be a fool to eat it. Never screw with the people who handle your food.

    Hoagie (f4eb27) — 8/14/2015 @ 9:35 am

    Except good Christians would never spit or smear sh*t into other people’s food. Idiots like Feet and Carlitos don’t grasp that it isn’t the Christians who will retaliate, it’s people who hate gays and have no religious or moral scruples restraining them.

    When I was in high school in the 1970’s, I knew a nasty bully boy who worked at a local burger joint. He boasted that when someone he didn’t like came in and placed an order- someone who looked like a “f*ggot” a word he used quite freely – he took the hamburger bun into the bathroom and wiped it on the rim of the toilet before putting it on the victim’s plate. I have no doubt he actually did that too. “They never even notice, because f*gs love the taste of sh*t,” he laughed.

    He was about as religious as Carlitos.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99)

  36. Actually Exiled, I never said I would do anything to the product. I wouldn’t. But as was once explained to me the fear of death is worse than death itself. IOW, I’d give them the Big Grin and say”Enjoy your cake” with an evil little chuckle. But we all know they didn’t want the cake anyhow, they wanted the attention and the ability to bully someone like moral or carlito does. They probably threw the cake away. Their mission was accomplished once they psychologically harmed the Cristian. I’m sure they’d do more harm if they could. We have allowed people with psycho-sexual disorders to infiltrate and manipulate the law. What could possibly go wrong?

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  37. Well instead of just boring everybody but Perry was attacked on Fox constantly for weeks the opps moment was later but everyone jumped on the democrat smearing talking point that were debunked in his last governors race

    here are several videos from when Perry ran last – compare contrast what happened in 2012 with what is going to happen to X frontrunner if it isn’t trump or whoever Ailes is favoring etc

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fox%20Kelly%20Perry%20gardasil&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=fox%20kelly%20perry%20gardasil&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#a

    EPWJ (6dd9d3)

  38. Hoagie: Oh, I didn’t think you said you would. I believe you’re right.

    What I meant is that the sneering anti-Christians never seem to grasp that if they get rid of the Christians, they will be left with opponents who are as amoral and merciless as they are. That idiot I knew in high school hated gays and was unfettered by any Christian notions. I’m sure Feet and Carlito would scream and puke and sue if they discovered that a homophobe had used their hamburger bun to swap out a public toliet – but were they upset when Dan Savage purposedly wiped snot all over doorknobs in an attempt to make Santorum’s (I think it was Santorum’s) staffer ill? There’s no difference morally, none whatsoever, between the high school oaf and Savage.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99)

  39. Well carlitos, at least you are a consistent religious bigot, I’ll give ya that.

    Hoagie (f4eb27) — 8/14/2015 @ 9:38 am

    I suppose. My old boss had a group that did volunteer work for the local food depository. It turned out that they ( a pretty religious Jewish group ) ended up sorting shrimp into bags. They printed it in their newsletter and managed not to behead anyone.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  40. The totalitarian Carlitos has no problem laughing at Muslims – on the Internet, when he’s using a pseudonym. But he will certainly not go into a Muslim bakery to order a wedding cake. None of the gays will. Because they’re snide little cowards.

    If the gay fascists ever face off against the Islamic ones, the gays won’t last a minute.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99) — 8/14/2015 @ 10:25 am

    So you think that I’m gay? A snide little coward? And you don’t find your post on the internet, using a pseudosym to be ironic?

    You crazy, bro.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  41. It turned out that they ( a pretty religious Jewish group ) ended up sorting shrimp into bags. They printed it in their newsletter and managed not to behead anyone.

    I’m sorry carlito, but I don’t get these two sentences. Didn’t the shrimp arrive in bags or boxes? Or were they sorting by size like 21-30, 12-16 and such? Which they should have come in also. Ad why would a Jew behead anybody? You got me all screwed up. Although my little great nephews and niece are here so crap is banging and flying all over the place. I’m not used to this kid stuff! I wish they’d get in the damn pool already.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  42. Mike K (90dfdc) — 8/14/2015 @ 7:57 am

    Since he is your son and you have an ongoing relationship with him, I assume you can/have answer/ed the age old question, at least in this instance, whether they believe what they say or are willingly deceiving their opponents.
    So, your son really didn’t think this would happen?
    What does he say now? Is he OK with Christians being forced to do things against their beliefs?

    It seems this court, the court in Denver mentioned in a link, and some people here think they get to say what other people’s consciences should tell them to do.

    The approved thinking is that Christians who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are bigots and should be ostracized and punished as possible.

    Of course, this is the only way Christians (who believe the Bible) will be acted against, and if they only give up their homophobia everyone can be happy again…

    This was easy to be seen all along for those with eyes to see. When the shoot comes up, it may not look like corn to those who don’t know better, but if it’s corn, it’s corn, and will turn into a fully grown plant.

    Undermine the foundation of a society, and you have a society that is sinking.

    Those with solid faith will do just fine. Those who mock will be in the place of Niemöller.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  43. I’m sorry carlito, but I don’t get these two sentences. Didn’t the shrimp arrive in bags or boxes? Or were they sorting by size like 21-30, 12-16 and such? Which they should have come in also. Ad why would a Jew behead anybody? You got me all screwed up. Although my little great nephews and niece are here so crap is banging and flying all over the place. I’m not used to this kid stuff! I wish they’d get in the damn pool already.

    Hoagie (f4eb27) — 8/14/2015 @ 12:54 pm

    Observant Jews don’t eat shellfish. Nor do they feel comfortable handling them. It’s in Leviticus.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  44. You know, MD, I would feel much more comfortable about all this if the folks who know oh so much better than all of us were equally fervent about observant Muslims making cakes for gay marriages.

    Not much theater about that, I notice.

    Simon Jester (eb2e5f)

  45. they wanted the attention and the ability to bully someone like moral or carlito does. They probably threw the cake away. Their mission was accomplished once they psychologically harmed the Cristian

    The baker was always the bully. He singled out these people and treated them like they were lesser than his other customers. They fought back in the court of law and won.

    if they get rid of the Christians, they will be left with opponents who are as amoral and merciless as they are

    This is complete nonsense. The result of these precedents is that it doesn’t matter if you justify discrimination with Christian beliefs, the will of allah or if you’re just some sort of A-hole. If you are caught doing it, the full weight of society and law will rain down upon you.

    some people here think they get to say what other people’s consciences should tell them to do.

    If it’s against the law, then damn right. Some people lack a conscience completely, and we have laws to keep them in check so society can function.

    moral (48c03f)

  46. I promise that I am “equally fervent” about observant Muslims making cakes for gay marriages.

    Tell you what:

    But he will certainly not go into a Muslim bakery to order a wedding cake. None of the gays will. Because they’re snide little cowards.

    If the gay fascists ever face off against the Islamic ones, the gays won’t last a minute.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99) — 8/14/2015 @ 10:25 am

    I’m busy this weekend and traveling next Monday – Wednesday, but over the next week, I’ll wear a GoPro and film myself ordering a “gay wedding cake” at a “muslim bakery.” Only if you put some money in the game. Let me know what you’re willing to bet.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  47. My main issue in a pluralistic society is that many people either are not insightful enough to realize or just don’t want to think enough to understand,
    that forcing people to enable an event that they disagree with is different than simply refusing to sell an item to a person.
    Now, one may think it is still wrong, or that they disagree that it is a substantive difference,
    but to fail to see the logical reality is the sad thing,
    and if a society cannot think consistently on issues of basic logic,
    there is little reason to think there is hope to reason over ethical disagreements.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  48. If it’s against the law, then damn right. Some people lack a conscience completely, and we have laws to keep them in check so society can function.

    That is not to say that all laws are by definition just. Many laws throughout our history have been unjust, unfair and discriminatory. But these latest trends seem more like rectifying injustice rather than letting it continue unabated.

    moral (48c03f)

  49. … until they fear for their lives and livelihood, it will continue and get worse.

    Rodney King's Spirit (9225a4)

  50. But these latest trends seem more like reifying injustice rather than letting it continue unabated

    Correcting an obvious typo in your comment. Lord knows I make enough of them myself.

    kishnevi (294553)

  51. conflating religious belief with this very very base anti-gay bigotry

    I knew I would regret looking at one of your comments. I avoid them but erred this time.

    This is the world as seen by the gay fascist. Do as I say or I will ruin your life.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  52. “The baker was always the bully.”

    In your Orwellian world, fascist.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99)

  53. Observant Jews don’t eat shellfish. Nor do they feel comfortable handling them. It’s in Leviticus.
    Providing Gentiles with nonkosher food to eat is not normally a problem, unless there is a possibility a Jew might end up eating it. The only exception to this is mixing dairy with meat. Such a combination can not be prepared as food for anyone, for reasons specific to the prohibitions on that type of food.
    And this was tzedekah, charity. A Jew who has a problem doing tzedekah needs a refresher course on Judaism.

    kishnevi (93670d)

  54. So you think that I’m gay? A snide little coward? And you don’t find your post on the internet, using a pseudosym to be ironic?

    You crazy, bro.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/14/2015 @ 12:45 pm

    I’m not the one who is pretending to be Atheist Hero on the Internet, fool. I don’t believe for a second you have enough guts to order a cake for a gay wedding in a Muslim bakery – and you certainly wouldn’t sue if you were turned down. No gays will sue Muslims for not baking a cake for them.

    I don’t think you’re crazy. I think you’re a totalitarian twit, a sadist who gets aroused by forcing the religious to do things which go against their faith. Then you attempt to portray your viciousness and malice as a positive virtue. Nobody with any decency is going to buy that.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99)

  55. “Hello, Islamic Bakery of Denver?
    I’d like a Mohammed cake.
    Yes, you have to.”

    Exact same issue. The difference is, the POS gays aren’t stupid, they aren’t about to demand a gay cake from an Islamic bakery…

    Which makes the point — the only way to get religious respect in this nation any more is to be a complete nutjob about it.

    So what message is being sent to religious people?

    Hmmm?

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  56. “The baker was always the bully.”

    In your Orwellian world, fascist.

    Exiled on Main St.

    Your analogies are ironic. Both the Nazis and the fictional world of Oceania were fiercely against homosexuality and adherents of either would have more in common with the baker than the couple. Enforcing a social hegemony of the majority is the opposite of enacting anti-discrimination laws.

    moral (48c03f)

  57. Um. Carlitos? I wasn’t posting to you. There is an awful lot of tough talk on the blog right now, and I am not interested in such posturing.

    Again, without referencing you, I notice that the MSM has no problem attacking Christians and keeps pretty silent about Muslims.

    Simon Jester (eb2e5f)

  58. Enforcing a social hegemony of the majority is the opposite of enacting anti-discrimination laws.

    Anti-Discrimination laws are enforcing a social hegemony of the minority instead…

    How is this an improvement?

    Moreover, I have news for you — what I said above is only partly correct — the only situation in which you can even possibly get anti-discrimination laws passed in the first place is if roughly half the population agrees that the discrimination is wrong.

    So, yeah, anti-discrimination laws ARE a social hegemony of a majority, on BEHALF of a minority.

    Clue < —— get one they're FREE!!!

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  59. So can a baker refuse to bake a cake for two heterosexuals entering into a same sex marriage?

    Willie Lee (d6eb98)

  60. I don’t believe for a second you have enough guts to order a cake for a gay wedding in a Muslim bakery – and you certainly wouldn’t sue if you were turned down. No gays will sue Muslims for not baking a cake for them.

    I don’t think you’re crazy. I think you’re a totalitarian twit, a sadist who gets aroused by forcing the religious to do things which go against their faith. Then you attempt to portray your viciousness and malice as a positive virtue. Nobody with any decency is going to buy that.

    Exiled on Main St. (f03d99) — 8/14/2015 @ 1:51 pm

    It’s hard to tell — is this you avoiding the bet or accepting the bet. There are several posters here, including our host, that have my personal contact info.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  61. Steven Crowder posted, some time ago, on YouTube, a video where he went into a Muslim bakery in Dearborn, MI, asking for a gay wedding cake. Anyone who thinks the answer was other than NO would be wrong.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  62. Yeah, here it is:

    http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

    And yes, Crowder is being a jerk.

    But you see, I think that forcing people to make your wedding cake is also being jerkish. As many other say, why not find people who wouldn’t mind? Unless the goal is, like Crowder, to stir the pot.

    Simon Jester (eb2e5f)

  63. “Moral” wrote:

    they wanted the attention and the ability to bully someone like moral or carlito does. They probably threw the cake away. Their mission was accomplished once they psychologically harmed the Cristian

    The baker was always the bully. He singled out these people and treated them like they were lesser than his other customers. They fought back in the court of law and won.

    No, the baker treated them just like any other customers, including baking birthday cakes and selling other baked goods which had nothing to do with their “marriage” ceremony when asked. He declined only to participate in the “marriage” ceremony and reception. Someone who was actually educated on the case would have known that.

    The Dana who actually read about the case (f6a568)

  64. How visually disgusting would that cake have to be to get a Contempt of Court citation?
    Would it have to be edible?

    askeptic (efcf22)

  65. nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2015 @ 8:40 am

    Prostitution is illegal in Reno (Washoe County).

    askeptic (efcf22)

  66. Mike K.-
    What does your son think about the situation now?
    Is he willing to give some credit to those who he thought were crazy 10 years ago?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  67. the reason religious liberty was inventered was cause of for reals persecution

    yes yes it is so recorded in the annals of the history

    persecution so severe what came out of it was a revolutionary advance in the social compact betwixt man and government

    but this piteous ill-socialized douchebag baker bigot could never inspire the extraordinary and majestic affirmation of the individual what gave us the amendment numero uno

    he just makes a whiny vocal subcult of self-styled “christians” look like petty stupid whiny losers

    petty being the key word

    sorta like when the pope puts on his fancy popehat and starts channeling al gore like a bought and paid for cheap-ass msnbc propaganda slut

    these people have no dignity

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  68. 70
    The image I have is of two crooks racing to rat each other out.
    The comments relating to Boehner’s staff member are…interesting.

    kishnevi (294553)

  69. Prostitution is illegal in Reno (Washoe County).

    Dang! Now you tell me. What’s the statute of limitations, do you know?

    nk (dbc370)

  70. The baker was always the bully. He singled out these people and treated them like they were lesser than his other customers.

    In order to prove that, you need to show that the baker would have provided a cake for a gay wedding if the person actually ordering and paying for the cake was straight.

    malclave (4ddf38)

  71. Petty and no dignity reporting.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  72. Yes, yes, yes,
    religious liberty when the country was founded was based on more serious things like getting burned at the stake and such
    so,
    we should stand by and watch discrimination against religious belief as much as we want as long as not too much blood is shed.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  73. well we know the fate, of Wolsey, of More, Cromwell, Tyndall, and that was in the early Anglican era,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  74. It’s kind of like that thing in Europe where people just had to wear a yellow patch on their clothes,
    no big deal,
    and then had their legitimate ways of earning a living interfered with.
    If it would have stopped with that everything would have been OK.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  75. Carlitos, Happyfeet, and Perry Hood are at it again. The Bible explicitly declares homosexuality to be an abomination and unnatural and explicitly tells the believer not to even say “Godspeed” to someone in the plans of committing a sin as that would be an endorsement of the sin, thus causing the believer to sin. Baking a wedding cake explicitly for a homosexual wedding would be a sin as it enables and provides implicit approval for abomination and sacrilege (that of claiming two people of the same sex could actually marry, which they cannot).

    John Hitchcock (d22e97)

  76. that is a weak argument

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  77. The baker was always the bully. He singled out these people and treated them like they were lesser than his other customers.

    That’s a lie. Any reasonable person who was told the baker wouldn’t bake them a cake would go to another baker who would. Only a spoiled piss-ant bigot bully would do otherwise. You’re in denial. The baker “singled out” no one, it was these bigoted creeps who singled this poor guy out because he’s a Christian. Let them prove they didn’t single him out by going to a moslem baker and demanding the same thing. Didn’t think so. Bullies are bullies even if they’re fags. Plus, they’re cowards for not doing it to a moslem too. Heaven forbid these little perfume-farting snowflakes be told no.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  78. happyfeet,

    Without looking at the players, can you honestly say that it does not bother you that the rights of one party have been made subordinate to the rights of another party? Do you see this as an equal exercise of freedoms and a fair rendering by the court?

    Dana (86e864)

  79. 1 Timothy 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

    2 John 9-11
    9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

    Leviticus 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

    Leviticus 18:24-30
    24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

    29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

    John Hitchcock (d22e97)

  80. “The baker was always the bully.”

    In your Orwellian world, fascist.

    Exiled on Main St.

    Your analogies are ironic. Both the Nazis and the fictional world of Oceania were fiercely against homosexuality and adherents of either would have more in common with the baker than the couple. Enforcing a social hegemony of the majority is the opposite of enacting anti-discrimination laws.

    moral (48c03f) — 8/14/2015 @ 1:57 pm

    I read 1984 and don’t recall anything about Oceania being against homosexuality. I just did a quick search and couldn’t find anything about that either.

    The term “Orwellian” is used most often to signify the abuse of language. Calling someone who just says “I don’t want to do that” a bully is as Orwellian as it gets.

    Generally bullies impose their will on someone. Not baking a cake is not imposing anything on anyone, and generally, declining to do something is not imposing one’s will on someone, although it might be possible to conceive of a scenario where it is, but this definitely wasn’t one. The only ones who could possibly be the bullies are the gays. Period.

    Nor was the baker “enforcing a social hegemony of the majority”. The baker has no ability to enforce anything. Another kind of border-line psychotic Orwellian statement.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  81. Gerald A, that’s what you’re going to get any time you read something Perry Hood writes.

    John Hitchcock (d22e97)

  82. Dana, it’s nice you try. But some people just *know* stuff.

    So, since that approach bothers me, all I can do is look at myself and guard against the same hypocrisy.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  83. happyfeet,

    Perhaps I’m wrong,but I don’t believe at your core, you value one freedom more than another, or give more credence and weight to any One over another because I believe you have a deep respect for what the founders went through, and every man and woman since, to secure our liberties. And yet, when I see you doing just that, devaluing one freedom for the sake of another, you are indeed picking and choosing and measuring the worth of freedoms by your own lights. No equal-opportunity embracer of liberties are you. But because this seems dichotomous, as well as confusing, it would be helpful to me if you explained how you might claim to support and value all freedoms except for when it’s about gay bakers.

    Dana (86e864)

  84. I want to reply thoughtfully in morning I’m mobile right now

    I will I promise

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  85. I should have said “…except when it’s about gay bakers and exercising their freedom of religion”

    Dana (86e864)

  86. This ruling, as precedent, suggests that if the Catholic Church refuses to consecrate a same-sex wedding then they are flatly discriminating against gays, as gays.

    [T]he court said that the bakery’s distinction between serving gay customers and baking a gay wedding cake is “one without a difference.”

    “But for their sexual orientation, Craig and Mullins would not have sought to enter into a same-sex marriage, and but for their intent to do so, Masterpiece would not have denied them its services,” said the opinion.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  87. it would be helpful to me if you explained how you might claim to support and value all freedoms except for when it’s about gay bakers.

    Not sure if it is related to the occasion he sort of sidestepped the matter of whether he has had or is tempted to have social-sexual relationships with another male. I’m not being snarky when I mention that because I’m sure that various people’s gut reactions to the issue of GLBT is affected by their personal experiences—although I think leftist tendencies more than homosexual ones may have greater influence in the sympathy that a person has or doesn’t have towards SSM.

    Mark (9abec5)

  88. the behavior, that the baker rebels again is in ‘the sin nature’ of man, where behavior, will only change
    when the heart truly does, it’s more than just about politics,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  89. Carlitos, Happyfeet, and Perry Hood are at it again. The Bible explicitly declares homosexuality to be an abomination and unnatural and explicitly tells the believer not to even say “Godspeed” to someone in the plans of committing a sin as that would be an endorsement of the sin, thus causing the believer to sin. Baking a wedding cake explicitly for a homosexual wedding would be a sin as it enables and provides implicit approval for abomination and sacrilege (that of claiming two people of the same sex could actually marry, which they cannot).

    John Hitchcock (d22e97) — 8/14/2015 @ 5:50 pm

    that is a weak argument

    happyfeet (5546fb) — 8/14/2015 @ 5:54 pm

    As it ever goes, the atheist denies there is any legitimate Religious belief, so Religious Freedoms can be ignored.

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  90. Steve Malynn, Christians can have their Religious Freedoms as long as it doesn’t inconvenience other people. Which means it isn’t freedom after all, but crumbs from off their table.

    John Hitchcock (d22e97)

  91. put it another way’ if we are not being persecuted, for practicing our faith’ we’re doing it wrong,,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  92. Kind of like how carlitos and nk decided that since O’Keefe isn’t an important journalist, he does not deserve to practice the 1st Amendment without suffering government harassment.

    Remember for a leftist-approved right to be effective, it has to be the correct right, exercised by the correct person.

    Free Speech – this is for the NYTimes, not you
    Free Association – only for Occupy Wall Street
    Free (from) Religion
    Right to Arms – only the Militia – not that Militia, the National Guard you dunderheads

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  93. It’s more basic than that, Steve. I don’t like O’Keefe. Personally. I think he’s a twerp.

    nk (dbc370)

  94. As it ever goes, the atheist denies there is any legitimate Religious belief, so Religious Freedoms can be ignored.

    Hi Steve

    Who judges what a legitimate Religious belief is? What is the criteria?

    Gil (febf10)

  95. just as with CMP or lila rose’s shop,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  96. @John H 82.

    Thats an impressive list of quotes.
    Why should I believe any of it is actually from God? Why do you believe it?

    Gil (febf10)

  97. As decided by the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece, of course, Gil.

    nk (dbc370)

  98. Nobody here cares what you believe, Gil. We keep telling you. Believe what you like.

    nk (dbc370)

  99. yes, well 1700 years of doctrine, but Dan brown,. . .

    narciso (ee1f88)

  100. I didnt tell you what I believe. Im asking why you believe it.
    Why do you believe the Orthodox Church of Greece?

    Gil (febf10)

  101. None of your business.

    nk (dbc370)

  102. Gil, the First Amendment doesn’t come with a questionnaire to fill out before you’re granted the rights therein. So, according to the US Constitution, you lose.

    John Hitchcock (d22e97)

  103. @John 105

    Gil, the First Amendment doesn’t come with a questionnaire to fill out before you’re granted the rights therein. So, according to the US Constitution, you lose.

    I do not challenge your right to believe what you do. I just am asking why you believe it. You cant answer that?

    Gil (febf10)

  104. O’Keefe does not do journalism. He is a performance artist who does publicity stunts. Putting him in the same category as actual journalists is like putting Masterpiece Cakeshop in the same category as Yevgeny Rodionov.

    kishnevi (294553)

  105. None of your business.

    Predictably, you have no good reason so you hide behind this.

    Gil (febf10)

  106. ‘in a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act’

    narciso (ee1f88)

  107. Gil, you are the swine the Lord told me not to give pearls to. You have no real interest in being enlightened; thus, I have no duty to the Lord to attempt to enlighten you.

    John Hitchcock (d22e97)

  108. he is the portrait of ‘unregenerate man’ he has no understanding of what sin is, it is alien to him,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  109. Thats an impressive list of quotes. Why should I believe any of it is actually from God? Why do you believe it?

    That’s why in this age of increasing secularism, if not atheism, I like to cite the writings of ancient Greek philosopher Plato. The famous sage originally sounded like a modern-day liberal about homosexuality — declaring those bothered by it to be (to paraphrase) country bumpkins — but eventually came to strongly, harshly condemn it.

    BTW, I don’t believe Plato had a Bible — New or Old Testament — and I don’t believe he was familiar with another famous figure of history, of the name Jesus Christ.

    Mark (9abec5)

  110. well that would be unlikely since he wouldn’t be born for another 250 years, the world of the cave, is that where we live today,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  111. Putting him in the same category as actual journalists

    Considering the pathetic nature of the world of journalism today, I don’t know if there’s such a wide gulf between O’Keefe and those who you, for any number of reasons, feel like giving more benefit of the doubt to than they deserve.

    Liberalism has done to serious journalism what Obama has done to the American presidency.

    Mark (9abec5)

  112. Here you go, guys. A couple of Gil’s co-believers. Safe. http://candobetter.net/files/atheist-doorknockers.jpg

    nk (dbc370)

  113. it’s about something deeper than politics, mark, we see behavior that is contrary to nature, yet we are told to except just because,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  114. Mark, you do realize his strictures on homosexuality were part of the two totalitarian, or at least communitarian, utopias he planned out?
    I have seen a book,of which unfortunately I do not remember the title, which argued that Plato and Aristotle were the philosophical ancestors of Progressivism/Communism and classical liberalism, respectively.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  115. it’s about something deeper than politics,

    And religion too.

    I think a fairly large percentage of people have a built-in reaction of grimacing or flinching towards the GLBT, regardless of politics or religiosity—and if they’re being honest with themselves and others.

    I recall when I was quite young, and didn’t know the difference between liberal and conservative, or the story of Sodom and Gomorrah — and didn’t know what male and female genitalia were for — there was a segment on a TV news program about two men living together as a couple. I remember my sister (who was a year older than me) sort of smirking, and my also cringing at the guys described in the news show.

    Kishnevi, that innate mechanism, if you will, in Plato’s brain may have been operating when he too was in his youth, but it apparently broke down during his post-puberty and “down with the man!” years, but it started working again as he grew older.

    Mark (9abec5)

  116. Gil, you are the swine the Lord told me not to give pearls to. You have no real interest in being enlightened; thus, I have no duty to the Lord to attempt to enlighten you.

    I did not challenge you or ask you to enlighten me. I just asked why you believe what you do. But it is apparent you are yet another mindless believer with no good reason. It’s a shame really.

    Gil (febf10)

  117. For an atheist, you sure are letting religion consume a lot of your time, Gil.

    nk (dbc370)

  118. More likely he was trying to eliminate the political and social instability any unregulated relationship might bring. That is among the reasons he wanted to ban poetry.

    And it is the Symposium, which climaxes with Alcibiades’s love of Socrates, which influenced Western civilization, not the Laws, where he condemns homosexuality. Probably everyone here has read the Symposium. How many of us have read the Laws? Even I haven’t read it completely.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  119. For an atheist, you sure are letting religion consume a lot of your time, Gil.

    What people believe affects me. I think there is value in understanding people’s motivations for their beliefs. Dont you?

    As an aside, couldnt we say that same sentence in many ways such as:
    For a conservative you sure are letting liberal topics consume a lot of your time, nk.
    Seems a bit pointless.

    Gil (febf10)

  120. Just be patient, Gil. Every minute that goes by brings you closer to the answer to your question.

    nk (dbc370)

  121. At the end of days, Gil’s knee shall bow and Gil’s tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. But then, it very well could be too late for Gil.

    John Hitchcock (d22e97)

  122. It is interesting (not really) that Gil thinks a refusal to answer him automatically means an inability to articulate reasons. It does not. At all. But Gil thinks so highly of himself that he cannot even comprehend a possibility that he is just not worth answering the way he desires.

    John Hitchcock (d22e97)

  123. 122. What people believe affects me. I think there is value in understanding people’s motivations for their beliefs. Dont you?…

    Gil (febf10) — 8/14/2015 @ 9:12 pm

    Yes, I couldn’t agree more.

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=358473

    …”He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God… He said that raping me is his prayer to God.”…

    …In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.

    I am 100% for understanding what inspires and motivates people.

    Are you with me, Gil? It could turn out to be ugly.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  124. My point, that went over his head, is that in this country people are free to believe what they believe and it’s nobody’s business but their own.

    nk (dbc370)

  125. My point is that when Gil says…

    …What people believe affects me. I think there is value in understanding people’s motivations for their beliefs. Dont you?…

    …I am convinced he doesn’t believe it.

    But what do I know? I’m just some Islamophobe who read the Sunnah.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  126. I’m going to go read some noir unless I watch Aldritch’s “Kiss Me, Deadly” on YouTube. If I only had had a secretary like Velma ….

    nk (dbc370)

  127. You’re good, nk. I couldn’t do better for picking a video off of YouTube, off the top of my head, than Pat Benatar.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  128. Ha, ha. No, what I’m watching is the movie by Robert Aldritch, based on Mickey Spillane’s novel, featuring private detective Mike Hammer. And Velma. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HES8eEUaBL0

    nk (dbc370)

  129. What does your son think about the situation now?
    Is he willing to give some credit to those who he thought were crazy 10 years ago?

    I was up in LA having dinner with my daughter. My son and I do not speak unless necessary. He is angry and blames me for much of what went wrong in his life, such as his alcoholism. He is sober now but seems to be resentful of almost everything I do. His other siblings and I are close.

    No, I am sure he would not admit that he was wrong or, especially, that I was right.. His brother tells me that most of what I see with him is just a determination to oppose anything I favor. Such is life in some families.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  130. 129/131- You mean “Velda”.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  131. I haven’t got a problem with a feminist bakery being forced to make cakes celebrating rape, pedophilia, homosexuality, bestiality or any other Leftist sexuality.

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  132. To force a person to perform work against their will is the definition of slavery. It doesn’t matter if you pay them afterwards. Tossing a twenty at your rape victim doesn’t make her a whore.

    Jack (ff1ca8)

  133. Velda.

    nk (dbc370)

  134. Topic – anything under the sun
    Gil’s response – I hate hate hate Christianity and will hijack your thread to spew my nonsense and bile.

    JD (a8d68a)

  135. Gil wrote:

    For an atheist, you sure are letting religion consume a lot of your time, Gil.

    What people believe affects me.

    To affect something is to change or influence it; how does what other people believe change or influence you?

    The inquisitive Dana (f6a568)

  136. Mr feet wrote:

    Carlitos, Happyfeet, and Perry Hood are at it again. The Bible explicitly declares homosexuality to be an abomination and unnatural and explicitly tells the believer not to even say “Godspeed” to someone in the plans of committing a sin as that would be an endorsement of the sin, thus causing the believer to sin. Baking a wedding cake explicitly for a homosexual wedding would be a sin as it enables and provides implicit approval for abomination and sacrilege (that of claiming two people of the same sex could actually marry, which they cannot). (John Hitchcock (d22e97) — 8/14/2015 @ 5:50 pm)

    that is a weak argument

    Actually, it is the strongest argument of all. If you are a Christian — and Mr Hitchcock is a Protestant, the specific denomination of which I do not know — then you are saying that you believe that God is the Lord of all, and that the Bible is the word of God given to man.

    The Catholic Dana (f6a568)

  137. devaluing one freedom for the sake of another

    in this case I guess I would be devaluing this guy’s freedom to deny service to gay people for the sake of the freedom of gay people to just walk into a store and buy stuff like christians can?

    Not really.

    What’s in contrast here are the baker’s freedom to be a bigot against my freedom to say oh for the love of pete get a grip.

    I think the stupid baker should be free to deny service. But I have a duty as a christian to say nonono, that is wrong what you do.

    It’s wrong from a christian perspective cause it’s not how christians are supposed to be to people. And it casts christianity in a terriblly harsh intolerant and also ignorant light.

    And that is wrong for another reason. It’s wrong because it serves no purpose. No good end christian or otherwise is served by this man’s prejudice, and there’s certainly no good end, of a christian or more broadly social utility, to be found in my condoning his rude boorish and antisocial behavior.

    This is the effing EPITOME of situations we should not need to have laws for.

    We all in this lifeboat of fail together. I know it and it’s how I try to treat people.

    The baker, he does not understand this.

    I leave you with this facile and silly argument:

    Baking a wedding cake explicitly for a homosexual wedding would be a sin as it enables and provides implicit approval for abomination and sacrilege (that of claiming two people of the same sex could actually marry, which they cannot).

    This is crazytalk. Freedom of religion is all well and good but my freedom to say jesus christ this is nuts is in the same amendment. And it’s there for a very good reason.

    So in summary.

    No I do not believe that the government has a role here.

    The baker should be free to make an idiot of himself and let’s be clear – he’s responsible for all the legal woe what has befallen on his stupid head. He’s responsible for the consequences of his decisions. He said this is the time this is the hill knowing full well what the situation was.

    He is not a victim, he’s just another dimbulb failmerican actic\vist no different than those jackoffs what ruin people’s brunch.

    My religious beliefs and understanding of christianity, my practice of religion, they lead me to reject this idiot baker’s intolerant unchristian bigotry. And my freedom also to say nonono no way Jose, that is also an important freedom to exercise. And I am willing to accept the consequences.

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  138. *activist* i mean

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  139. oh. *terribly* harsh intolerant and also ignorant light

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  140. The part of the opinion that bothered me the most was the Court dismissing the expressive conduct (speech) argument by saying that it would be construed not as the expression of the baker but as the expression of the couple.
    — Herr Hassenpfefferesser, I cannot shoot these prisoners. The Americans will hang me for war crimes.
    — Nonsense. You will tell them that you were following orders.

    nk (dbc370)

  141. What bothers me the most is that two fags and a judge think they have they right to tell a baker how to practice his religion.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  142. there is way too much nazi stuff in this thread

    it just doesn’t rise to the level

    especially not at a time when america is actively campaigning for the genocide of israel

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  143. Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, except where a judge does not like they way you practice yours in which case you can’t.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  144. 145.there is way too much nazi stuff in this thread

    Rulings that punish people of a certain religion and force people into slave labor against their will have a tendency to have way too much nazi stuff.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  145. slave labor

    close your eyes and breath

    now think of the color blue

    blue

    blue

    a giant soft cool ball of blue that starts above your head and travels down into your shoulders down through your spine and into your toes and then softly bounce up up up and as it travels up through your spine to your head the blue is slowly warming slowly turning

    red

    red

    red

    a warm soft ball of red that travels up up up

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  146. It is all about Weltanschauung, isn’t it? And having the government-approved one?

    nk (dbc370)

  147. BTW, I used to go to Aspen every August for the musical festival. It’s a toney Las Vegas. All this is more about gay tourist dollars than anything else, in my opinion.

    nk (dbc370)

  148. They were ordered to change policies and take remedial measures. In his place, my policy change would be simple. No more wedding cakes for anybody.

    Then they have no grounds to complain.

    Sometimes you have to put your foot down.

    Hanna (63bd63)

  149. oh. *bounces* up i mean

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  150. Mr Hitchcock is a Protestant, the specific denomination of which I do not know

    Grace Brethren

    John Hitchcock (a62b0a)

  151. Happyfeet, The LORD said you don’t get to reject His words and still call yourself one of His followers. At the end, when you face Him, he will say “Depart from me. I never knew you.”

    John Hitchcock (a62b0a)

  152. i never been to aspen my whole life

    breckenridge is more higher on the bucket list but i would love to do both

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  153. the Lord is not obsessed with gay wedding cake and if he is then i’m pretty disappointed in him

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  154. So according to you Hanna, because of a couple fags you would cut off a profitable percentage of your business at the same time you deny your services to people who want them without compromising your religious beliefs. While your at it just bend over for them. If you’re gonna be their b!tch may as well do it right.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  155. don’t bend over Hanna it’s a trick!

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  156. 156.the Lord is not obsessed with gay wedding cake and if he is then i’m pretty disappointed in him

    Nobody said he was, did they? It’s the homos who seem obsessed about making Christians do something they don’t want to do not God. So while these gays are in psycho-sexual therapy a few hours of obsessive therapy may be in order.

    (You wanna do Myra Breckenridge?)

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  157. Mr Feet wrote:

    the Lord is not obsessed with gay wedding cake and if he is then i’m pretty disappointed in him

    Well, you are certainly free to be disappointed in the Lord, but the problem begins when he becomes disappointed with you.

    The very Catholic Dana (f6a568)

  158. http://www.biblestudyguide.org/topical/god-unchanging.htm

    God: God is Unchanging
    Bible study on God: unchanging.

    Mal. 3:6

    The Lord does not change.

    Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8).

    Ps. 119:89

    God’s word is settled in heaven; it will not change.

    Ec. 3:14

    Whatever God does, it shall be forever. Nothing can be added to or taken from whatever God does (cf. Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).

    Heb. 6:17

    God’s counsel is immutable (i.e., does not change).

    Jas. 1:17

    There is no variation or shadow of turning with God. There is absolutely no change with God.

    Matthew 7:21-23
    True and False Disciples

    21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    Matthew 7:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Matthew 7:34-39
    34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

    “‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
    a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
    36
    a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

    37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

    Happyfeet, you cannot reject The LORD’s words and still be a Christian. It is impossible. And you are, indeed, busily rejecting The LORD’s words.

    John Hitchcock (a62b0a)

  159. me and the lord we’re all good my life is very blessed beyond all deserving and i give back all i can

    gay people are not an abomination that’s a bible mistake due to bad editing or someone had their own agenda and thought nobody would notice if they snuck a few hateful reeree bits in

    but i caught em!

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  160. Happyfascist speaks for God. Happy knows more than everyone and he knows the Bible is wrong.

    If it’s wrong, then it cannot be God’s Word and following it cannot lead you to salvation.

    Oh, Happy also claims to be a Christian.

    Happy just knows so much that isn’t true.

    njrob (6df4ac)

  161. Went back to Breck last year for the first time in 17 years, happyfeet. Turned into a trustafarian county with all the snow borders. Buena Vista or the Western slope is where I’ll be headed. Aspen was fun when Hunter S. hung out. Whew, those were crazy days in Aspen.

    mg (31009b)

  162. I believe the Bible is talking about this type of behavior which is indeed an abomination:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/etc/script.html

    Many believers in Islam think women are unclean and boys are clean. They also interpret the Koran as saying they are not to “Love” a male, but it is OK to use them sexually.

    This is a link to an interesting compilation of sexual practices in the mideast including a man forced to marry the goat he was caught violating in order to be in accordance with local interpretation of the Koran. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/12/strange-sex-stories-from-the-muslim-world

    This type of boy humping behavior was common in the mideast and mediterranean during the time the stories in the Bible were told.
    Many people think David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship (David does wax poetic about him and there is that awkward moment when jonanthan strips off his robe..) although most all christians think it was like this: http://www.gotquestions.org/David-and-Jonathan.html

    steveg (fed1c9)

  163. Mr feet wrote:

    gay people are not an abomination that’s a bible mistake due to bad editing or someone had their own agenda and thought nobody would notice if they snuck a few hateful reeree bits in

    Pretty smart of them to have sneaked it into different books written over a thousand years apart. I wonder how they managed to get that into manuscripts over two thousand years old.

    The Dana who has actually read th Bible (1b79fa)

  164. gay people are not an abomination that’s a bible mistake

    happyfeet, forget the Bible, Christianity or religion in general. The very fact you yourself don’t casually and forthrightly come out and say whether you have or haven’t had a social-sexual relationship with another male — a type of hesitation that almost no guy will ever display when talking about relationships with women — automatically indicates that even you know there’s something, er, uh, strange or embarrassing about homosexuality. Not to mention your habit of often using the word “gay” in a pejorative manner.

    Mark (9abec5)

  165. Mike K (90dfdc) — 8/14/2015 @ 10:47 pm
    Thanks for the reply, though I am sorry for the state of affairs. I almost put in parentheses “if you have a reasonable relationship with him” in my question, as I know all too well how some things go in directions that we never dreamed of.
    I believe you are not a person much for prayer, but I will anyways.
    In the last few days I’ve been blind-sided by a few such turns of affairs in people I know, including extended family.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  166. someone had their own agenda

    true that, feets. Those who wrote the Bible did indeed have an agenda different than yours.
    We get to choose which agenda to agree with, whether it is legal or not.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  167. Mark is a weirdo.

    That is all.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  168. Hanna (63bd63) — 8/15/2015 @ 6:58 am

    That is what he has done (no more wedding cakes). Several long time customers have been greatly disappointed as they were looking forward to having him do theirs.
    And he does good work, saw some pictures. It was impressive.
    If they tasted 1/2 as good as they looked, then they are something.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  169. I’ve been blind-sided by a few such turns of affairs in people I know, including extended family.

    There are people who grow up and those who, even at the age of 50, are still stuck in childhood. I don’t know if leftism is related at all. Sometimes it seems so.

    I have five kids and all are doing well. The oldest son is doing well as a lawyer but seems to have issues. I was blind-sided last year to find all this out. I had had no idea. He lives in the Bay Area and there may be something contagious up there.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  170. Dr. K., sometimes it is a maturity issue, rather than a chronological one. I find that many folks feel that the only way that they can love or respect a person is if they agree with them. It’s rather sad.

    Like I tell my little kids, I love them no matter what—no matter how they feel. You know that better than most.

    Honestly, I had many issues with my mother. But in my 30s, I realized that she was doing her best as she saw it. And this is good, because I was with her the night before she died, and did my best to see the good. But I had had about twenty years of that point of view before she passed.

    Hopefully your son will wake up to this truth, as well.

    Simon Jester (753872)

  171. Mark is a weirdo.

    When an ad-hominem response is the best you can do, Leviticus, that’s when I know (and you do too) that what I’m saying is the way it is, because that’s the way it really is—political correctness be damned.

    I don’t know if leftism is related at all. Sometimes it seems so.

    “If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at 40 you have no brain.”

    Mark (9abec5)

  172. I know Democrats are members of the Tolerance Party but many show very little in their real lives. I don’t know if it’s due to a lack of empathy, maturity, rebellion, or something else — maybe different things for different people — but my feeling is that liberals don’t accept people who make different choices than they make. They think conservatives are the intolerant ones but if that’s true, then it’s something we have in common.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  173. The Bible portrays God as having emotion. Some things are abominable unto God.
    Predatory sexual behaviors are particularly abominable.
    On the Richter scale of Gods anger, I doubt the American gay marriage triggers much more than one of those loving sighs that a Father does when a deeply loved son wanders.
    I would be willing to bet that forcing a Christian baker to do a wedding cake gets God a little more heated- only a bad person would force another to do this. A good person walks away and gets another baker.

    God warned that when we pick our leaders we are stuck with our choice, and while our state has no right to coerce a religious person but we have chosen people to lead us who disagree and they are willing to use force.
    I think we are approaching a time comparable to the Old Testament law days where there are so many oppressive laws people will be forced to rebel against the state. (God said -paraphrased- “The 10 commandments were fine. Simple. But you want laws? Here. You guys will come up with so many laws they will break you. I’ll have to drop onto earth and tell you to stop the nonsense and to love God with all your heart, body, soul, mind and to love one another as you love yourself because evidently 10 commandments need to be condensed into 2. Try to live according to 2 laws. Try with everything you got. You’ll come up short because you are human, but shake it off and try again.”)

    The state should stop making laws or rulings about cakes and get to the business of building reservoirs, fixing roads, facilitating and resourcing GNP.
    We are in big trouble when the state and law are involved down to the level of cake.. its like the Biblical edict against eating leavened bread or mixing dairy and meat. Ridiculous.

    steveg (fed1c9)

  174. DRJ, this is something I have spent my lifetime thinking about. To my parents and brother, I was a Leftist. In academia? Well, I am a nutty Right winger. Thus, I am the outsider to most folks, politically.

    When you have an “in” group, you often begin to think that you are reasonable and witty and wise. And fellow thinkers feel the same way. So when someone disagrees with you…well, they must be the opposite of reasonable and witty and wise.

    It is a positive feedback loop for many people.

    But it can hurt families, big time.

    Simon Jester (753872)

  175. I think about it, too, especially about how it can impact families. I think it’s important to be open to other views but I’ve decided families need shared values. Families need to be united and it’s very hard to be united if you disagree on big things.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  176. I wonder who is dumb enough to eat food prepared by someone who hates you or the event for which the food was ordered? I would wonder just what was added to the cake as a protest. Lots of mouse droppings to be found, for example.

    iconoclast (53aa89)

  177. DRJ, there is a great quote from Robert Frost: “Home is the place when, you have to go there, they have to take you in.”

    I understand what you write. My childhood was not very pleasant, and caused me many problems—some of which persist to this day. It would have been easy to turn my back on my parents. Understanding that, despite our differences, they had done their best, meant a lot to me. It let me say goodbye to my mother the right way when she died, and to be kind to my father as he declines.

    That is just my story. For me, family is more important than politics. In no way I am judging others; clearly I am no paragon of anything. But my feelings helped me.

    With great respect.

    Simon Jester (753872)

  178. Dang! Now you tell me. What’s the statute of limitations, do you know?

    nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2015 @ 4:31 pm

    On the crime or the disease?

    Bill H (2a858c)

  179. I had many issues with my mother.

    I had issues with my father who told me to forget about college. I left home at 18 and never went back to live.

    When I graduated from medical school, I sent him a copy of the school year book with items about my awards. He used to tell patrons of his tavern how tough it was sending a son to medical school. When he died and I had to wind up his affairs, some of them told me I was not sufficiently grateful for all he had done for me. I never said a word.

    We owe something even when they didn’t do much beyond bringing you into the world. When I was a small boy, we had a good relationship but even then it was chancy. He was an alcoholic.

    My son had two grandfathers alcoholics. It’s just life. We all do the best we can.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  180. I admire you both, Mike K and Simon Jester.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  181. There is a silly Meryl Streep moving coming out, about a rock and roll mother who left her family…and returns to trouble. Her kids don’t much like her.

    Meryl Streep’s boyfriend in the movie said something that struck a chord with me: “It’s not their job to love you. It’s your job to love them.”

    I never understood that until I had my children.

    Simon Jester (753872)

  182. My father used to say the best thing about having kids is they put you in your grave an hour the sooner and you get to rest. We are three brothers. And occasionally, if we annoyed my mother enough, she’d say it would be easier to raise seven daughters in place of each one of us.

    nk (dbc370)

  183. While I agree with this on the whole, “Families need to be united and it’s very hard to be united if you disagree on big things.”, I also understand that not members will be on the same page at the same time. Our kids often need time to sort out the values they were brought up with, test them out, and then, prayerfully, make them their own. I respect that working out of faith, of ethics, of values, and admire the young person who thinks about such matters and seeks to figure out what kind of person they want to be. Hopefully, if we’ve done our jobs correctly as parents, they will want to, in as much as values go, want to be like us.

    This is why I admire Leviticus. He is a young man who continually thinks about these deeper issues and attempts to find his own way through them.

    Dana (86e864)

  184. Dana,

    I think it’s especially important for spouses/parents to have shared values. I also agree we want our children to learn to think for themselves so their adult values will be based on their own reasoning and not based on parental indoctrination. However, as worthwhile as that process may be, that doesn’t make it easy on the family. Further, as some of these comments show, it is difficult in the long-term when children embrace very different values than their parents — whether they are conservative or liberal values. I suspect the people who can make it work deliberately set aside their differences to put the family first, but that’s easier said than done.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  185. What interests me is spouses who have very different political views but feel like they have shared values. Raising children can certainly bring spouses together, but sometimes that link lessens when the children are grown. Others feel that politics aren’t important to their lives, especially when they are younger and building their lives/careers. But IMO the differences surface sooner or later, especially as government expands into our lives and affects us more.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  186. i just wanna stay one night and drink lots of wine and see the lights in breckenridge

    aspen i’m not sure maybe the film fest would be the thing

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  187. We are in big trouble when the state and law are involved down to the level of cake.. its like the Biblical edict against eating leavened bread or mixing dairy and meat. Ridiculous.

    yes yes yes

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  188. Great hiking and biking, beautiful scenery, indigo sky like I’ve never seen before. The people suck.

    nk (dbc370)

  189. Ok, not all of them.

    nk (dbc370)

  190. DRJ,

    I believe wholeheartedly that spouses who share the same values, have an easier time staying married and successfully parenting their children. I think the lack of similar values causes more significant problems and heartache than if they don’t hold the same political views. Our politics stem from our faith, our faith informs our politics, therefore, I believe shared values is the key. The politics may differ, and there may be stresses in raising children as a result (once the children reach certain ages), but at those times of stress, or particularly as those children make their ways into adulthood, it is the shared values that might keep together that which has come more to the surface of the relationship and caused division, such as politics.

    Dana (86e864)

  191. Drink plenty of water, happyfeet. The altitude will sneak up on you.
    I used to be a pro at 9600 feet.

    mg (31009b)

  192. I would love the chance to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I know precisely the ingredients I would use. I would provide this service for free, as long as the happy couple allowed me to attend the ceremony and watch with my own eyes as they ate my cake. A win/win for everyone!

    Basta! (df475d)

  193. This would be the same power government flexed with the Jim Crow laws; redefining private businesses as public utilities, on a par with beaches, parks, swimming pools, libraries, and public transportation, in order to have a say in whom the business can, or can’t serve.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  194. The key to understanding how the cases of Masterpiece Cakeshop and Elane Photography before it are crushing blows to religious liberty is the fact that the justices in each case dismissed as a defense West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (SCOTUS, 1943). Barnette reversed Gobitis vs. Pennsylvania, a 1940 decision allowing a state to expel students from public school for refusing to salute the Stars and Stripes for religious reasons. The Gobitis decision was inspired by a perceived need to spur national unity as a return of U.S. troops to Europe seemed imminent (when the events of the Gobitis case occurred in 1938, nobody was even thinking about Japan).

    For decades Barnette has been the landmark weapon used by those defending their religious beliefs against government interference, intervention, and persecution. The Barnette opinion was written by Justice Robert Jackson, which included these statements relevant to our times seven decades hence (bold mine):

    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections…

    …[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

    If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

    I’d like to jump into Doc Brown’s DeLorean and suggest to the Justices that in 2015, an exception allowing government to force citizens to take actions that violate their religious beliefs would be if they refused to accept business in which they would be asked to participate in a marriage between homosexuals. Just to see the looks on their faces. Then I hopefully would be able to make a hasty getaway at 88 mph before I was put in a straitjacket.

    L.N. Smithee (880b3e)

  195. Correction: The Gobitis case was not named Gobitis vs. Pennsylvania, it was called Minersville School District vs. Gobitis. More about that case and the subsequent overturning via Barnette can be found in many places, including here and here.

    L.N. Smithee (880b3e)

  196. DRJ wrote:

    I know Democrats are members of the Tolerance Party but many show very little in their real lives. I don’t know if it’s due to a lack of empathy, maturity, rebellion, or something else — maybe different things for different people — but my feeling is that liberals don’t accept people who make different choices than they make. They think conservatives are the intolerant ones but if that’s true, then it’s something we have in common.

    Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

    Wm.F. Buckley, Jr. (1b79fa)

  197. iconoclast wrote:

    I wonder who is dumb enough to eat food prepared by someone who hates you or the event for which the food was ordered? I would wonder just what was added to the cake as a protest. Lots of mouse droppings to be found, for example.

    It’s simple: if the bakers are Christian enough to decline to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage,” then they are too Christian to do as you suggested. The left know that,very well, even though the left also know that, were the positions reversed, they would most certainly “do something” to the cake.

    And, for a food service to deliberately taint its product in any way is a felony.

    The realistic Dana (1b79fa)

  198. taylor swift would bake the cake

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  199. i worry about altitude cause my lungs have never really recovered from the smoking

    but i just take it slow

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  200. The people suck.

    you remind me of Blowing Rock North Carolina where people are either snooty or wholly without personality but the town’s charm somehow compensates a lot

    and Asheville is even worse

    bless their hearts not sure how they got like that

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  201. I hiked to the top of Aspen mountain, altitude 11,200 ft, and biked to the Bells, with cigarette breaks on the way, and only worried about putting my cigarettes out properly. At age 40. Two miles is not that high. We had a little trouble sleeping the first couple of nights, that’s all.

    nk (dbc370)

  202. Sunburn is something to look out for. You’ll have lifeguard nose before you know it.

    nk (dbc370)

  203. next vacation will probably be south carolina during winter i think

    planning vacation is hard right now cause of my boss quit and there’s no replacement in sight

    god bless america thank you I’m a need to put these bells on the bucket list

    so weird how everyone gets the same pic

    they must have like a viewing platform right there or something

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  204. ohnoes!

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  205. no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
    L.N. Smithee (880b3e) — 8/16/2015 @ 4:04 am

    Thank you for this info. I guess the argument that would be made against it was that the court at that time was sufficiently blinded by its own prejudices and that we have now evolved as a society to a better place.
    That would be the argument, anyway, even though it is wrong and based on self-contradictory thinking.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  206. dismissed as a defense West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (SCOTUS, 1943).

    I take it that you are saying the defense lawyers argued this in their cases and it was ignored.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  207. Well said, Dana 194. I agree.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  208. Excellent comments, L N Smithee. Thank you.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  209. how foolish of the bigot baker to let such a precedent be set huh

    the unthinking moron, he’s made failmerica suck even harder, at a time when this stupid country is increasingly embracing obamatrump-style fascism, and all to the glory of a false hate jesus what only exists in his stupid hateful ignorant head

    social cons are not good for america

    they childishly politicize crap what does not belong in that sphere

    they make me sick to where i need a hamburger

    i had a hamburguesa last night in brooklyn that was to effing die for it was from a nowheres place on the corner

    it had that kinda dense seasoned white bread torta-style bun and a big hunk of beef medium well and oaxaca cheese and a lil guac on one side and the other side they’d spread chorizo in the bun

    it wasn’t cheap but nothing here is cause of taxes and regulations and you have to pay bribes and such

    we also went to Prospect Park I found a tree there it was very exciting

    it’s called a Camperdown Elm it has a story!

    here’s kinda the gist of it

    In a large park of general disrepair, this particular tree’s plight caught the eye of Marianne Moore. The poet’s public entreaty brought restoration to the elm. This success inspired others to give, rather than animal and plant specimens, the renewed appreciation and persistent advocacy that sparked a renaissance for all of Prospect Park.

    i know i’ve read Marianne Moore but I can’t think of any of her poems and she was very prolific so it’s hard to google the ones I may have read i think I’m a kindle a collection

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  210. Yes, as said above, if we look from a human scale (which in some ways is beside the point with God)
    whether or not one bakes a cake for a same-sex wedding is not such a big deal.

    But since it is not such a “big deal”, why does the government need to step in when their are plenty of people willing to bake it?

    What is a big deal is being told that acting on one’s belief in the foundation of human society as God designed it is against the law.

    Now, the view of life as a believer in Jesus as described in the NT includes things like “all will be persecuted” and “it is through many trials that we enter the Kingdom of God”,
    so being told one cannot earn a living according to one’s convictions is really not an unusual thing.
    What is an unusual thing is the degree of freedom that has been enjoyed in this country to worship according to one’s conscience (excluding only things that are otherwise widely held as evil, such as human sacrifice as the ultimate hyperbolic example). Christians and the Church will be sanctified by the coming harassment. It is the rest of society that will suffer the most, though the likes of Gil and feets mock the idea. As Jesus told those weeping for Him on His way to thew cross, they were not to weep for Him, but for themselves. In a few days He would be risen, in a few decades their city would be laid waste.

    I imagine the likes of Gil and feets would be chagrined to know they are the fulfillment of prophecy:
    “knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires…”

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  211. a construct more profane there is i hope to never see

    than how some cloak in sanctitude the basest bigotry

    jesus says to love thy neighbor love them like yourself

    this bigot baker says yes yes lord but still hates someone else

    the gays he says the gays You made these ones i will shun

    this one’s not my neighbor he’s an abomination

    jesus wept

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  212. “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” (John 15: 18-19)

    DRJ (1dff03)

  213. oh for the love of pete self-styled “christian” bigots have persecuted gays for so long they’ve taken to thinking of it as a natural just and sacred right

    and REAL persecution not just omg they made me make a cake shudder shudder oh the humanity persecution

    Hypocrisy. That is why the world hates you.

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  214. Honestly, it amazes me to hear a bigot calling other people bigoted. I surely don’t speak for God or Jesus, and my opinion is my own. And the older I get, the less certain of things I become.

    I suspect Mr. Feet would feel at home with the Unitarians of my acquaintance.

    Simon Jester (d2c15d)

  215. And I guess that I come to this sad but lovely song by the late Warren Zevon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWMzkR-Iykk

    Let us be be brave, and let us play nice indeed.

    Simon Jester (d2c15d)

  216. you are too easily amazed

    you must run around going oh my stars and garters like a hundred times a day

    me i say a cake’s a cake if baking was my gift

    i’d bake for everybody no one would get stiffed!

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  217. Do you hate Christians, happyfeet?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  218. C’mon, Mr. Feet. I dislike engaging you, but I am not the only person who finds you to act in a bigoted fashion.

    The cutesy schtick is silly, besides.

    You just know things are correct the way you want them to be. And they aren’t, just because you think so.

    The thing that gets me is that you get to repeat your hateful and silly bit, over and over again, and expect that no one else is going to treat you the way you treat others.

    Simon Jester (d2c15d)

  219. And, for a food service to deliberately taint its product in any way is a felony.

    But not necessarily an alteration of the ingredients so that there’s too little sugar, too much salt, too little this or too little that, etc. There’s no law that says a food establishment has to provide great-tasting products, and even the best restaurants or bakeries will have off days.

    Buyer beware.

    Assuming the guests who’d nonchalantly attend the wedding of such a couple even if perfectly aware of the controversy stirred up by the bride/bride or groom/groom, they’d probably have synthetic, shock-proof taste buds anyway. Moreover, I’m guessing the pushy GLBT-type of people who are demanding that a business cater to their every need and whim are full of a self-entitlement ethos in general, probably fitting the profile of stereotypical obnoxious leftists. So like attracts like.

    Mark (9abec5)

  220. Final bit. John Hitchcock is extremely devout. So is MD in Philly. To them, I fear, I am not quite as good a Christian as I could be. Yet they do not castigate me for my beliefs, nor I they.

    It’s clear you have strong feelings about gay folk. That’s fine. You might be surprised how many people share that aspect of your belief. What many people do NOT like is your conflating religious folk not wanting to participate in a gay marriage with bigotry. The difference is clear: if the cake makers were marching up and down, calling gays terrible names, that would be one thing.

    But they aren’t.

    And you know perfectly well that many of these gay wedding/gay cake tempest were set up. Looking for the controversy.

    So you have your opinion. That’s fine. But folks who disagree with you are not bigots.

    They just disagree with you. And calling them names, over and over again, is hardly likely to change any minds.

    But *that* is what you are about, I fear: the trolling.

    Simon Jester (d2c15d)

  221. The thing that gets me is that you get to repeat your hateful and silly bit, over and over again, and expect that no one else is going to treat you the way you treat others.

    He has yet to clarify whether he himself is GLBT, which would give everyone a better understanding of the exact origins of his often overly defensive, overly indignant reactions, along the lines of “methinks he doth protest too much.”

    Mark (9abec5)

  222. I like for reals christians like mom n dad n my lil brudder and cousin squashblossom and many many of you here

    the one what use the bible to justify hate I still like them just not as Christians just as people

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  223. *one* I mean I’m wandering around battery park just checking in

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  224. Who here uses the Bible to justify hate?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  225. lol *ones* I mean… I need more coffee

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  226. I don’t like naming names and making stuff personal

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  227. they know who they are

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  228. Then I will assume you mean me, unless you deny it.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  229. no no not you guess again

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  230. I take it that you are saying the defense lawyers argued this in their cases and it was ignored.
    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 8/16/2015 @ 5:50 am

    Correct. I’m not a lawyuh, so I don’t always get the wording right.

    The oft-quoted separate concurrence in Elane Photography written by New Mexico Supreme Justice Richard Bosson (“It is the price of freedom”) does something that is, to me, unforgivably ignorant: It essentially equates the principled, scripturally-based stance against same-sex marriage of plaintiff Elaine Huguenin and her husband and the scripturally-based stance of the Gobitis and Barnette children (both from Jehovah’s Witness families) to the extra-biblical, obviously bigoted, slavery-rooted anti-miscegenation stance of the judge that wrote the following in affirming a ruling that literally ran black Mildred Loving and her white husband out of the state of Virginia:

    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

    L.N. Smithee (880b3e)

  231. SORRY! NM Justice Bosson didn’t write “It is the price of freedom,” he wrote “It is the price of citizenship,” i.e., one must compromise one’s religious activities if one embarks on doing business as a public accommodation.

    L.N. Smithee (880b3e)

  232. Information like the following is why I’m becoming less and less sympathetic towards the righteous! cause! of! the! GLBT! as each day goes by.

    Some on the left claim that people’s right to SSM is analogous to people of different racial or ethnic background demanding access to government-sanctioned marriage. But then some of those same liberals turn around and say that the “B” of “GLBT” must be accommodated too. So what is it? Changing society to fit the needs of people who are totally one thing and not the other, or changing society to fit the needs of humans who are like shape shifters?—where free choice and free will are a big part of the equation.

    ibtimes.co.uk via drudgereport.com, August 16: According to a new YouGov survey, 49% of 18-24 year-olds in Britain define themselves as something other than completely heterosexual. The Kinsey scale invented in the 1940s placed people on a range of sexual preferences from exclusively heterosexual at 0 to exclusively homosexual at 6.

    In the YouGov study, individuals were asked to put themselves on that sexuality scale. In total, 72% of the British public scored themselves at the completely heterosexual end of the scale, while 4% were at the completely homosexual end, with 19% stating they were somewhere in between – classed as bisexual by Kinsey.

    One of the most striking findings of the new study is that with each generation, people see their sexuality as less fixed and more fluid. The results for 18-24 year-olds are particularly telling, with 43% placing themselves in the non-binary area between 1 and 5 and 52% place themselves at one end or the other. Of these, only 46% say they are completely heterosexual and 6% as completely homosexual.

    When it comes to breaking down in terms of gay men and women 1.5% of men in the UK say they’re gay and only 0.7% of women say the same. But in terms of bisexuality, 0.3% of men select this, compared to 0.5% of women.

    Patterico said a few years ago that one reason he supported the concept of SSM was because sexuality, at least in his case, was very intrinsic and non-pliable — or, to paraphrase, similar to skin color or eye shape, etc — so the same must therefore hold true for others.

    The left rejoices in naivete and loves to exploit the naif.

    Mark (9abec5)

  233. It’s called being sexually fluid, Mark.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  234. the one what use the bible to justify hate

    The problem, happyfeet, is that you keep insisting that Christians who want to to exercise their rights to adhere to their religious beliefs is justifying hate. You have agreed that it is not only right, but Godly for the Christians’ rights to be subordinate to other individuals.

    Think about the serious implications of that. If we allow that one group has more freedoms than another group, what’s to make it stop at religion, or speech, or anything else?

    Why do you want to live under fascism?

    Dana (86e864)

  235. Or worse, happyfeet, why do you want to be a supporter and proponent of it?

    Dana (86e864)

  236. Why we call it perfidious albion, among others.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  237. Dana, I think that this originates from the weird thoughtless narcissism of our society now: we want to think of ourselves as tolerant and kind people. And that makes us easy prey for sloganeering.

    The balance between individual rights and group rights is always a challenge.

    Careful thought about both sides—rather than lampooning one’s opponents—takes time, thought, and effort.

    Everyone is busy.

    I find that Jonah Goldberg’s book was very, very right.

    Simon Jester (d2c15d)

  238. I never said about the subordinate

    my position is the putatively christian baker should be free to be a bigot

    and an idiot

    it’s sad he tars real Christians with his sick feverish hate

    But I will keep standing up for real Christians what understand the gospel message of love

    I want a diet red bull

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  239. I imagine some gays and their supporters are bitter and resentful that Christians are objecting to their treatment, which gays believe is nothing compared to past treatment of gays in America. Of course, Christians in the Muslim world have suffered far more than gays in America. And, historically, American blacks suffered more than American gays. If we’re going to keep score, I need a scorecard.

    But I don’t view America as the land founded on the principle that everyone has a chance to get even when they feel victimized. Unfortunately, that seems like what the Bill of Rights means to some, and maybe that’s what it always seems like to the winners.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  240. Rights matter but so does language, happyfeet. We don’t call you a bigot against Christians when you stand up for gays who complain about cake. If you are going to frame this as nothing more than a dispute about cake, then it works both ways. Why are gays and their supporters so intolerant over a little cake?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  241. yeah getting even is no good

    too many laws in failmerica

    everyone should just make the comments and let people do their thing

    I settled for a skinny latte at this lesbian sammich shop on greenwich street is air conditioned a lot and ellie goulding is singing pensively

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  242. I’m not standing up for the complainers per se… not to the extent that they lawyer up anyway

    and it bothers me way more what the bigot bakers are doing on Christianity than what they are doing on gays

    So needless so sad so pointless

    Nothing is accomplished by the rude puerile anti-gay activism of these cake makers it’s just so stupid

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  243. If arguing over cake is stupid, then it’s stupid both ways.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  244. that’s too reductive

    happyfeet (fe40df)

  245. 3 donuts have i
    sat on one/that was fun
    flushed numero 2 twice
    number one..that’s a pickle

    pdbuttons (944767)

  246. Of course it’s reductive, happyfeet, but sometimes simple arguments can still be right or even profound.

    In this case, you seem to think this is a serious issue to gays but a frivolous issue for Christians. You demonstrate an inability to see other viewpoints, at best, intolerance, or worse. Obviously this topic matters to you. Why can’t you accept that it can matter to other people, too, without calling them names?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  247. Breckenridge still had charm in the 70’s and early eighties. Wooden sidewalks, The Devils Triangle, Gold Panners, The Anchovies, No snow borders [hsf}, slow-pitch tourneys in Aspen. and get out of jail free cards. What a decade or two!!

    mg (31009b)

  248. Mr. buttons Mr. buttons!

    happy summer! is warm and moist here in new york today and the terrorism tourists are dripping with sweat and raindrops

    they designed the museum building so so so tacky to where the fat pasty tourists all line up outside in one of those airport security type lines

    srsly?

    yes

    in one of those airport security type lines

    sick sick sick

    both the design and the idiots what surrender themselves to it

    even the tiny freedom tower looks down on them condescendingly

    poor freedom tower – you look at it from afar

    and you can see it’s such a timid little thing

    poking its lil head just above the skyline like a timid narwhal

    we’ve lost so much

    glad to see you

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  249. So, since The Glorious State *WILL* have its way (despite the alleged religious “rights” of the accused in these cases being infringed up one side and down the other) …

    Perhaps from now on, religious bake shops should just “order out” a lovely wedding cake from Safeway and pass it on to the whingeing-gay-complainer types.

    Commerce uber alles.

    A_Nonny_Mouse (1b86f1)

  250. In this case, you seem to think this is a serious issue to gays but a frivolous issue for Christians.

    yes i do cause the stupid baker is asserting that christianity is not for gay people and that gay people can’t be authentic christians

    that’s offensive and supremely not very christy

    gay people are christians a lot for example my friend F goes to the first mass every month all by himself

    it’s weird to say to people they aren’t allowed in your little club when you’re actually talking about hello Christianity

    whereas going to a Bakery for a Cake seems rather normal and I can imagine it’s a bit of a shock for all the gay christians when they say howdy do neighbor we’d like a cake please it’s for a wedding! (weddings are happy cheerful affairs)

    and then bam they get a buncha wacky pseudo-theology thrown at them by an ignorant hick who says go away go away YOU ARE AN ABOMINATION you can’t have cake omg no cake for you under no circumstances

    srsly? why again?

    because Jesus that’s why

    back away slowly from the crazy baker person don’t make eye contact jeeze louise

    then they post it on facebook and yelp for so everyone knows not to go to the crazy man

    this is how america rolls

    me personally i don’t have a facebook or a yelp account mostly i just make comments here

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  251. DRJ, when has the gentleman in question not called people names?

    It’s not my kind of thing, but other folks seem to not mind.

    Simon Jester (8f5711)

  252. DRJ, when has the gentleman in question not called people names?

    omg this is SUCH an exaggeration i can’t even belieber you would say this

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  253. jesus says to love thy neighbor love them like yourself

    Indeed.

    I would like to be told the truth. If I am about to put diesel fuel in my non-diesel car, I would like someone to tell me.
    If God intends for me to be “X”, but I find myself drawn to be “Y”, I would like to know sooner than later that “Y” is the wrong direction, especially if I am also told that God is willing to help me become “X”, which will be the best for me and make me happiest in the end.

    Which gets us back to the origin of the problem. Some people want to say “Y” is just fine, and they want people who are pro-X to just shut up.
    Not only that, but they refuse to discuss the issue and act in a rational manner, like our friend Smithee demonstrates above.

    The command to love one’s neighbor as oneself is the second great commandment, subservient to the first commandment. One knows how to love one’s neighbor by listening to the Creator of your neighbor and yourself and loving Him and His ways first.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  254. you’re over thinking it Mr. Dr.

    Jesus loves the little children ALL the children of the whirl

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  255. feets is a prime example, he thinks he has a better moral compass that what is written ion the Bible, and if the Bible disagrees with him, it is wrong. He thinks he knows better how to love a person with same sex attraction.
    (Now, I imagine feets would likely not say that God was wrong when He wrote the Bible, but that people introduced errors into it over time.)

    Now, I have made this allusion/reference before, and maybe some day I will be able to do a better job of condensing it (but it’s not likely going to be today).
    At the trial of Ivan Karamazov, the prosecution and the defense both take the same set of facts and suggest wildly different ways as to how they came about. Who one believes is more due to preconceived notions of what was most likely, rather than the evidence.
    I think theological belief is like that, at least when looked at with intellectual honesty. For example, one person looks at evil in the world and argues that there cannot exist what we would call a god who is loving and powerful; another person looks at the same facts and thinks “How far we have fallen” and looks forward in hope for the day when God makes things right.

    Some think same sex attraction is “as normal” as heterosexual attraction and people who are attracted to the same sex would often say, “This is not something I do, it is who I am.

    If one assumes a materialist view that there is nothing that transcends atoms and molecules and cells and tissues, then one has a lot of evidence that argues for the SS view (but by no means does all the evidence in even this realm say it is so).
    If one says there is more to a human being that only the material, and thinks that people have fallen from their original state, there are many ways a human can be “corrupted”. Some of us may more readily than others be agreeable to acknowledging our corruption and seek redemption. Others of us like the state we are in and think redemption is at best a joke, at worst a hate crime to even think it

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  256. feets, you are being foolish, and if you persist in your cutesy denial of the truth you will prove a fool.
    One cannot overthink the fundamental facts of human existence anymore than one can build a skyscraper without a foundation.

    For those interested, I am sure this book says it better than I ever could.
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Meaning-Marriage-Family-Market/dp/1890626643
    Of course if one thinks Robby George is a token Christian idiot at Princeton one may not want to be bothered by it.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  257. Simon I don’t think in terms of “better” or “worse” Christians (at least not when I am in a sane frame of mind).

    And in a direct way, whether one is of exemplary character and behavior or not does not make one a Christian, let alone a good one or not.

    All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God,
    some have taken up the offer and have given their life over to Jesus in recognition of how He gave His life to save theirs.
    Properly understood and applied, one goes from being a slave to sin to being a servant of God and increasingly looking like such.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  258. it’s weird to say to people they aren’t allowed in your little club when you’re actually talking about hello Christianity

    Except they’re not saying anything about joining the club, happyfeet. Christianity welcomes *everyone* to the club, because the leader of the club understands all too well that all have fallen short. Everyone, not just the gays, but *everyone*.

    There is no difference to God with regard to sin in that all of it is to be repented of, and that every one claiming to believe will be transformed by the renewing of the mind and the power of the Spirit. That’s how in need we *all* are, no one is exempt.

    Why do you want to exempt the bakers? They saw their need, they answered the call, they sought forgiveness for their wretchedness and now are attempting to walk in light and not darkness. Why isn’t that enough for you and the gay couples? What more would you demand of them that God hasn’t?

    Dana (86e864)

  259. Dana the ONLY people the bakers do the discriminations on is gay people

    they’re very weirdly selective in who they pick on I think

    and I have a theory why they do it

    (it’s cause they bigoty on the gays)

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  260. happyfeet,

    I think you are discriminating against people based on their religious beliefs when you decide which beliefs are really Christian and which ones aren’t. You support people who claim they sincerely believe the Bible says we should accept gay lifestyles and SSM. Meanwhile, you reject people who claim they sincerely believe the Bible says the opposite.

    In America, religious freedom means we don’t judge other people’s religious beliefs. The law may have to balance different rights, but it doesn’t decide which religious beliefs are acceptable and which aren’t.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  261. In America, religious freedom means we don’t judge other people’s religious beliefs.

    bosh and pickles

    oodles of christian churches are just fine with gay marriage

    tolerance would mean saying ok in my church gay people can’t get married but in yours I guess it’s ok… now let’s talk about fondant vs. buttercream

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  262. Simon Jester, don’t suppose you’re less devout than others just by reading their words. I suspect I would leave you disappointed. And Happyfeet has already declared entire sections of The LORD’s Holy Word to be garbage and unacceptable; thus, any of his declarations of what a Christian is has already been voided a priori. He has rejected the commands of his Creator, and quite possibly has been sent the Powerful Delusion, that he will be unable to see the Truth.

    John Hitchcock (922e83)

  263. happyfeet,

    The First Amendment applies to all religious beliefs, not just the ones where the majority of the people agree with the beliefs.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  264. Revelation 3:14-19

    14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

    These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

    19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.
    ———
    There will be lots of supposed churches who will be spat out. They are lukewarm, not taking a proper stand against evil.

    John Hitchcock (922e83)

  265. It’s true that you are free to judge other people’s beliefs, just as we all are. I’m not that impressed with people who believe in snake handling. But that doesn’t mean the law can sanction people who hold those beliefs. There may be reasons why the law has to get involved and balance competing interests, but it’s not supposed to take sides just because the majority thinks it’s a crazy or mean or stupid belief.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  266. “There are many who think they are first, who will be last”.
    “Woe to you when all speak well of you”.
    (paraphrased)
    Jesus

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  267. I forgot to list the absolute evil that pedophile priests indulged in when they raped little boy and young teenagers.
    I don’t think their crimes were based on their faith allowing them this sin, but rather out of hideous disobedience.
    As John said above, we decide if we go to heaven.. but then again, Jesus ultimately decides… the man beside Jesus on the cross was forgiven… I hope some day to hear his story.

    My main point echoing DRJ above is that government should stay out of it and let the marketplace take care of it…

    Coercion works to a point, then fails.
    That is a clue as to some of the laws God follows: He will not coerce love. It is antithetical even though he says we need to love him with all of our being and soul.
    Hopefully the lesbians and the cake maker can have cake and coffee in heaven and laugh about it all

    steveg (fed1c9)

  268. If government stayed out of it, steveg, there wouldn’t be a problem: Christian bakers could live and work by the lights and in accordance with the Bill of Rights, and gay couples would find savvy bakers who saw a demand for gay wedding cakes, and opened niche bakeries to meet that need. Win-win.

    And that’s precisely why the government cannot, and will not, stay out of it.

    Dana (86e864)

  269. Honestly, and this takes us back to Patterico’s ideas, the thing here is how people are willing to define things based on what they wish to be true, rather than what was written or even previously accepted.

    John and MD (and Dana and DRJ, for that matter), all that I meant is that I am by no means as devout as many others, yet I respect the heck out of religious belief. Even my own (to many) lukewarm views.

    And the push to redefine religion based not upon discussion, but what pop culture is pushing, worries me no end.

    I was taken aback by statements by HF regarding what Jesus meant, what God thinks, and what religion is…based not about theology, but what the Daily Show pushes. There is the real danger.

    Pure narcissism and self congratulation.

    As Weird Al says in “Amish Paradise,” hilariously “I’m a million times as humble as thou art.”

    Dana, in #273, you wrote something profound. I believe that there is something dark in the hearts of all of this burns to tell other people what to do. I like your solution best.

    But no worries. Our modern culture—our “betters,” apparently—will tell us what is acceptable to believe.

    Simon Jester (d2c15d)

  270. The First Amendment applies to all religious beliefs, not just the ones where the majority of the people agree with the beliefs.

    But that doesn’t mean the law can sanction people who hold those beliefs.

    DRJ i do NOT believe baker guy should face any legal sanctions or penalties whatsoever.

    i just think he’s wrong and should try to be a nicer person going forward.

    I think he’d be happier for it and might even end up making new friends.

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  271. i never even seen a whole Daily Show just clips of it on blogs.

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  272. I was taken aback by statements by HF regarding what Jesus meant, what God thinks, and what religion is… based not about theology, but what the Daily Show pushes. There is the real danger.

    but you are soooo missing the point i’m kind of embarrassed for you Mr. Simon

    how i was taught to be a good christian is every bit as valid as how the ignant baker was taught (maybe even more valid)

    and yes you can arrogantly dismiss my religious beliefs if you want and sneer about me watching some stupid cable show (cable is against my religion) but these are still my believes

    i believe jesus wants us to treat gay people (who are our friends and neighbors and family members) same as everybody else and not do discriminations on them

    i believe the baker behaved in a very unchristian way to them gay people what wanted a cake

    and millions of christian people share my believes

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  273. Okay, I’m done.

    You all can let this intellectually lazy person call people of faith whom he disagrees “bigots” all you like.

    I do recommend you count the number of times he calls people offensive names. But that is just part of his silly laziness. He doesn’t think. He reacts.

    I’m sorry I even wrote anything, though I do believe in sticking up for folks trying to defend their beliefs.

    But not to worry. Happyfeet gets to define religion, politics, and everything else. If you call him on it, you just get the “clown nose on, clown nose off” silliness.

    He gets slapped around at Protein Wisdom a fair amount. But folks just let him blather on here. And that’s fine.

    But HF? You aren’t all that. You are just one person, and you are judging people and tarnishing their names—even folks who post here. You don’t like it when I call you a bigot (as you are) and a misogynist (as you are) and an intellectual hypocrite (again, as you are).

    But it’s okay for you to insult whenever you like.

    So long as you bring up people being unclear on the concept.

    Dude, when you lose JD, that says something.

    And you truly do stink up Patterico’s blog. Big time. And I am not the only person who thinks so.

    Still, it’s his blog. He lets you crap on his carpet. But it does kind of impact the guests willing to step around your nonsense.

    Simon Jester (d2c15d)

  274. why are you so grumpy

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  275. Eh, 273 should be “their” own lights…

    Dana (86e864)

  276. And you truly do stink up Patterico’s blog. Big time. And I am not the only person who thinks so.

    QFT

    John Hitchcock (922e83)

  277. And you truly do stink up Patterico’s blog. Big time. And I am not the only person who thinks so.

    Well said Simon.

    Gazzer (feaf20)

  278. Simon Jester,

    Some of us may simply be blessed with more patience because we ourselves were, at one time, unable to see clearly on an issue or got stuck. It has been helpful to me to have my established views challenged, and have the fallacy in my reasoning exposed, thus leading me to a more consistent and coherent point of view. I don’t think I’m unusual in that regard.

    With that, I also don’t think in terms of Christians as better or worse. We’re just all a mess. And given that we’ve asked Christ into our hearts evidences our awareness of our lack of standing before God. I don’t attend church, and at this point in my life, likely won’t again. I have seen too many in the pulpit and church leadership elevate themselves as examples to live by, and yet, in secret they savored and nurtured their private sins, which of course included adultery and all the other glop that accompanies sexual sin, while telling others how to live. I’ve seen them stand in the pulpit with their giant guts hanging unceremoniously over their extra-extra-large pants and railing against the sin of homosexuality (such an easy target) while their very body screamed I am a glutton! It’s so easy for one in the pulpit to rail against the “big” sins, while living all too comfortably with the plank of pride blinding them – and they’re too self-consumed and far from God to even see the blood spilling from their eyes onto the floor. The hypocrisy is stunningly foul.

    So, we’re all in the same boat, none of us gets to pick and choose and play God. Christian bakaer or gay couple. He alone decides. After all, who do you think keeps the boat afloat?

    Dana (86e864)

  279. happyfeet is articulating an interpretation of Christian faith to which many people adhere. It’s the interpretation of Christianity acknowledging the necessity of interpreting Christianity. Lots of people don’t like to admit that acts of interpretation are central to every system religious belief – because admitting the reality of interpretation while simultaneously acknowledging the fallibility of human beings raises difficult questions about our own practices. It puts our interpretation under the microscope. Denying human fallibility is an empirical nonstarter, so people dodge difficult self-examination by denying the necessity of interpretation. The same destination by a different route.

    Of course, if religions and religious people weren’t so centrally concerned with figuring out who is/isn’t God’s favorite, different interpretations on some topics could orbit around core tenets in viable way. This could produce dialogue – iron sharpening iron. Nah – deep down, people (religious or not) prefer what they already have to what they might obtain.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  280. Dana’s (immediately preceding) comment is really good.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  281. Fair point, dana, but I think the total unfamiliarity with the Word, contributes to the chaos of this world. Without it, we are adrift more subject to the temptations of this world.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  282. “HF? You aren’t all that.”

    – Simon Jester

    I understand that as a college professor in modern America you probably feel bullied and intimidated by the insane political correctness of your students. It explains the resentment you display towards them, and the petulance of comments like the one quoted. But it’s ok – this is a safe place! You can speak your mind here without fear of reprisal, in the comfort of relative anonymity! happyfeet will be the last one to accuse you of any sort of microaggressions, I’d wager – even when he disagrees with you.

    But it really is an unseemly misappropriation of your students’ thuggish speech-stifling tactics to make so many appeals to the administration for the stifling of a dissenting voice, I think.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  283. #284

    happyfeet is articulating an interpretation of Christian faith to which many people adhere.

    Totally irrelevant point.

    It’s the interpretation of Christianity acknowledging the necessity of interpreting Christianity.

    I have no interest in “interpreting Christianity”. I don’t even know what “interpreting Christianity” means. The necessity is to interpret the bible. From what I can tell, by “Christianity”, people like you and happyfeet just mean your own opinions as self defined Christians, and the opinions of other self defined Christians you agree with – who are also just spouting their opinions. And any opinion of people like me who try to adhere to the bible should be understood as just our own opinion. Then it becomes an argument over whose opinion is nicer or more loving or some such thing. This is why people like happyfeet and you are consistently talking past people like me, and vice versa on this topic. You don’t, as a matter of principle, define Christianity by the bible, but never quite explicitly say so (maybe because you still want to pull out a few bible verses when it’s convenient) even while you put the Christian label on your view point.

    Lots of people don’t like to admit that acts of interpretation are central to every system religious belief – because admitting the reality of interpretation while simultaneously acknowledging the fallibility of human beings raises difficult questions about our own practices.

    Speaking from my own experience, Bible based Christians are very keen on discussing various interpretations of the Bible.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  284. “Speaking from my own experience, Bible based Christians are very keen on discussing various interpretations of the Bible.”

    – Gerald A

    Could you ask them which one is right, then, on my behalf? It would make my life easier, to know.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  285. Of course the Bible and its teachings are at the center of my faith as a Christian. Of course that doesn’t absolve me of the burden of interpretation that goes hand in hand with any text, any collection of marks and symbols designed to convey meaning.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  286. #289, #290

    Which is it Leviticus? Are bible based Christians “them” or is the bible at the center of your faith as a Christian.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  287. Both, I guess? I mean, I have my Bible-based interpretations of things, but they’re probably significantly different than (say) John Hitchcock’s Bible-based interpretations of things.

    Leviticus (fe34d2)

  288. If words mean something, they mean something. Sometimes the words may be unclear, apparently conflicting, or making references to things that are unfamiliar to us. Besides, since we are discussing things that by definition are beyond our ability to fully comprehend we should expect to not fully comprehend them.

    So, yes, there are differences in understanding parts of the Bible.
    But when someone chooses to deny something that is quite clear in major portions of Scripture, then it should be pointed out as such.

    Please, Leviticus, get off of your high horse about who is willing to do self-examination or not.

    Twain said the parts of Scripture that bothered him most were the parts he did understand. Likewise, disputes over what is obvious in Scripture is not nearly as important as getting on with how to apply what is clear.

    Now, if one reads the Bible at all, it gets clear pretty quickly that there are always people claiming God said something that He didn’t, and those who are faithfully representing God’s truth. You can go ahead and say group A is right and group B is wrong, or the other way around, whichever, but it is an intellectually sounding cop-out to act as if the most enlightened way is to shrug your shoulders, toss everything to the wind, and say, “Who knows for sure?”

    You, Leviticus, may give kudos to feets for expressing a view of “Christianity” that many people hold. I say he is putting forward heresy, no matter if every major denomination on earth agrees with him. When you want to call something “Christianity” that contradicts the teaching of those who saw Jesus face to face, you might as well call “Hinduism” a belief based on the songwriting of George Harrison.

    The thing that aggravates me about feets is he isn’t willing to be honest about who he is calling a bigot. I would rather have him call me a bigot and be direct than be all cutesy, I consider it disrespectful.

    Dana, if you don’t gather with others to worship in some capacity, you might want to check out a fellow named Francis Chan at Crazylove.org and use his sermons as something to think about.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  289. To everyone,

    HF challenges peoples faith, and as many people here have defended it and I hope it gives them strength and comfort. I think everyone has contributed wonderfully, and are a good group of strong moral people

    Thanks

    Eric

    EPWJ (cde2e6)

  290. Simon jester is simply pointing out that as with guests on the front porch, allowing one person to dominate the tenor may mean others choose to leave, and the host needs to decide whose behvaior he/she wishes to encourage.

    This is P’s virtual front porch. He can have on it whoever he wants, but he cannot necessarily have everyone he would like on it at the same time, as some are offensive to others. Some threads turn into feets about every 3rd post repeating his cutesy insults and denying he is insulting.
    So some would rather just leave the front porch.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  291. I disagree, I do not find feets to be “challenging” anyone’s faith.
    He issues his pronouncements based on his own opinions contrary to the foundational documents of what he claims to follow,
    and calls people names and denies they have any rational basis for their beliefs and actions.

    in other words, he engages in another form of “Just shut up”.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  292. When the Bible says “do not do this detestable thing, and do not support those who do this detestable thing”, it is heresy to say that thing is not detestable and those who do not support that thing are bigots. There is nothing Christian about declaring the Bible wrong about what is detestable.

    John Hitchcock (922e83)

  293. The thing that aggravates me about feets is he isn’t willing to be honest about who he is calling a bigot. I would rather have him call me a bigot and be direct than be all cutesy, I consider it disrespectful.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 8/16/2015 @ 5:29 pm

    I think it makes him feel clever. Or maybe a lightbulb’s supposed to go on in our heads, and we say “Wow, now I get it! I am a bigot!”.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  294. And the passive-aggressive patronizing of Simon Jester wasn’t courtly, either.

    John Hitchcock (922e83)

  295. As a card carrying member of the Homophobic Gay Communo-Nazi Islamo-Christian Satanist Pirates of the Confederate States of Israel, I think you are all wrong but I will not try to convert you because I know the wrongfulness of your thinking is due to burden of sins you have accumulated in your past lives and the only way to be cleansed of them is by living more virtuous future lives so that you may be eventually reincarnated into the One True Path which leads to Enlightenment and Union with the One Which Is Nothing And All. (And if you understood any of that, get help.)

    It is not entirely happyfeet’s fault that the discussion went from legitimacy of government coercion to correctness of doctrine. He said at least twice that the gay couple did the wrong thing to sue. And he is certainly not Gil. And the Colorado court was not sitting as Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office for the Doctrine of the Faith. At issue is its interpretation of the First Amendment, not of the Bible.

    nk (dbc370)

  296. I keyed in a post earlier today (which went into moderation) — with text on a description of ancient Greece and Plato, and how homosexuality even way back then (pre-Christianity) elicited very negative reactions — about my sense that an issue like SSM, when placed in the context of Christianity and religion in general, tends to isolate or limit an explanation of why GLBT! triggers reactions of disapproval, if not revulsion, in many people.

    Simply put, the liberal cynic and skeptic in particular may convince him or herself that the only reason homosexuality and SSM causes feelings of disquiet in a large percentage of humans is due solely to the Bible or is due solely to religiosity, or that such a reaction doesn’t pre-date Christ, or that what goes around doesn’t come around. Ain’t so.

    Mark (9abec5)

  297. that isn’t the point, it is forcing someone to go against their values, or incur significant penalties,
    which is the way things happen in Europe now,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  298. now mind you that is not unexpected, considering the nature of this world,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  299. I have my Bible-based interpretations of things, but they’re probably significantly different than (say) John Hitchcock’s Bible-based interpretations of things.

    Leviticus (fe34d2) — 8/16/2015 @ 5:28 pm

    When the Bible says “do not do this detestable thing, and do not support those who do this detestable thing”, it is heresy to say that thing is not detestable and those who do not support that thing are bigots. There is nothing Christian about declaring the Bible wrong about what is detestable.

    John Hitchcock (922e83) — 8/16/2015 @ 5:44 pm

    Leviticus assures us he has an interpretation of that. Let’s hear it Leviticus.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  300. Blah blah shellfish menstrual blood animal sacrifice yada yada Sodom Gomorrah inhospitality etc etc David’s polygamy love your neighbor plank in thine own eye blah blah blah…

    I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just making statements for the record.

    Leviticus (fe34d2)

  301. “Don’t do it” cannot be interpreted into “it’s okay to do it”.
    “It is detestable” cannot be interpreted into “it’s not detestable”.
    “The LORD is unchanging, unchangeable, without a shadow of changing” cannot be interpreted into “He said it was wrong then but it’s fine now”.

    John Hitchcock (922e83)

  302. See, great example: what about the shellfish, then?!

    Anyway. Peace.

    Leviticus (fe34d2)

  303. You can have my marinated, broiled octopus when you can grab it from the plate before I do. Christ changed that rule, Leviticus. It is not what goes into the mouth that pollutes a person, it is what comes out of the mouth that pollutes a person.

    nk (dbc370)

  304. it is forcing someone to go against their values

    In public debate, I think liberal and conservative (and centrist, if you will) biases aren’t given enough emphasis and attention, and so talk about Christianity or religiosity often will fail to note that such biases can easily override — can run roughshod over — the theology in question. Simply put, a liberal Christian may have more in common with the gut instincts of a leftwing secularist than, for example, a rightwing atheist will have with a liberal atheist.

    Mark (9abec5)

  305. a liberal Christian may have more in common with the gut instincts of a leftwing secularist than, for example, a rightwing atheist will have with a liberal atheist.

    I dunno about that, Mark. Himmler’s rightwing atheist SS had a lot in common with Stalin’s leftwing atheist NKVD.

    nk (dbc370)

  306. MD

    I just reread what I wrote, I don’t approve, agree, with HF, I think he’s forcing people to defend their faith and I think the challenges make people stronger.

    EPWJ (cde2e6)

  307. I want to amend my comment at 283: I don’t want to sit under such hypocrites and liars that seem to populate America’s pulpits because if they are no different from me, no more humble, no more without pride and arrogance, and lead no better life than do I, what’s the point? Who are they to tell me how then to live? To clarify, I am no better than they, nor different in nature; I simply know and admit what and who I am. And plead for God’s mercy because I know the truth and can speak it.

    Dana (86e864)

  308. Himmler’s rightwing atheist SS

    But, nk, were the gut instincts of Himmler necessarily conservative, meaning not sappily idealistic or foolish?

    psychologytoday.com, November 2011: The feared Heinrich Himmler once asked his doctor, who was a hunter, “How can you find pleasure, Herr Kerstein, in shooting from behind at poor creatures browsing on the edge of a wood…It is really murder.”

    Mark (9abec5)

  309. 307. See, great example: what about the shellfish, then?!

    Anyway. Peace.

    Leviticus (fe34d2) — 8/16/2015 @ 6:14 pm

    Where in the New Testament does it say anything about shellfish, or any of the dietary laws?

    It’s in the Old Testament for a reason, and it’s not in the New Testament for basically the same reason.

    The Israelites were supposed to distinguish themselves from the neighboring peoples in various ways. While Christians are not.

    The New Testament is called the New Covenant for a reason. It’s essentially a contract. And Christians have a different contract with God, with different clauses.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  310. Himmler was a murderous psycho so your guess about his instincts, besides lust for power and outright death worship, is as good as mine.

    nk (dbc370)

  311. outright death worship

    Thanks to this forum I’m acquainted with the grotesquely ironic nature of extremists like Himmler — not really delved into by most historians (certainly the liberal ones who want Nazis as closely identified as possible with the right, not the left) — who until a few minutes ago I didn’t realize was, in particular, one of the big animal lovers associated with Germany’s Nazi Party. I knew Adolph Hitler had a big soft heart for pets and animals but I didn’t know it extended to one of his leading minions like Himmler.

    The psyche of such major characters of world history helps me better understand the mindset of the folks at, for example, Planned Parenthood and all their very liberal, my-love-for-Fido-is-a-sign-of-my-humanity sycophants.

    Mark (9abec5)

  312. nk 300,

    I enjoyed your comment but, with respect to your second paragraph, I would like to point out that happyfeet said (in comment 19) that the religious beliefs expressed by the baker are “more harmful to religious liberty than anything the government is doing.” Thus, despite his claims to the contrary (i.e., comment 275), I don’t think happyfeet disapproves of government sanctions in this case. Further, he opened the door to a discussion of the doctrine of religion and religious liberty.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  313. Dana 312,

    I think you are focusing on what you can get from that church, but perhaps you should also consider what you would bring to that church. I know you are a humble person and that you probably recoil from feeling like you can teach others, but I think you have much to give.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  314. The New Testament is called the New Covenant for a reason. It’s essentially a contract. And Christians have a different contract with God, with different clauses.

    And one of the differences that comes into play here is that of chukkim…things God decreed which we do even though there is no rational reason to them. We just do them, subordinating our will to His. The laws of kashrut are such a type. We can suggest reasons why, for example, not eating shellfish is a good idea, but the real reason is, to borrow a line from Dante, it is so decreed where Power and Will are One.

    Which is why Judaism can call on a line of argument in dealing with homosexuality that Christianity can not. Even if homosexuality is biologically inborn , natural, etc., God told the Jews not to do it, and the fact that this may be a hard thing to endure for some Jews does not mean they can ignore the prohibition. The downside (for you) is that since it is not banned in the seven Noachide commandments given to gentiles, it is not prohibited to them.

    kishnevi (93670d)

  315. I think he’s forcing people to defend their faith and I think the challenges make people stronger.
    EPWJ (cde2e6) — 8/16/2015 @ 6:26 pm

    I disagree, feets does nothing to make anything of a challenge to anyone’s faith,
    all he does is offer unthinking intimidation to anyone willing to be intimidated with flippant cries of “bigot, shut up”.

    He does offer, otoh, an opportunity for sanctification and growth in patience,
    but that is not listed among the gifts of the Spirit

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  316. Speaking of shellfish, did I ever quote King James VI & I at you?
    Twas a bra’ [brave] man that first did eat an oyster.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  317. DRJ,

    Thanks, but no thanks.

    Dana (86e864)

  318. Christianity has an obvious argument that is identical with a Jewish argument. The Lord God Almighty made man in His own image, male and female created He them. God did not intend for man to be same-sex attracted anymore than he did for a man to be attracted to another man’s wife. That in our fallen state we encounter such temptations is not a testimony to their moral or spiritual legitimacy.

    God is slow to anger and full of compassion, He did not give us His truth to be mean, a killjoy, a prude, or stand in the way of human happiness. Follow His ways and one has life, to turn from Him and go one’s own way is death. I do not wish to stand idly by while people make a wreak of their existence following a spiritual delusion anymore than I would like someone to stand idly by while I would maker a shipwreck of my life.
    One can say that is all a bunch of nonsense, I just like to self-righteously hate people different from me.
    One line of reasoning is more true than another, and one day it will be made clear which one it is.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  319. I respect your decision, and God certainly calls us in different ways. I still think you would make a good role model at any church.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  320. our pastor pointed out, from Genesis, the sin began with reinterpreting god’s law, not the eating of the apple, henceforth every step made us rely on our wisdom not gods’ word, hence the law by itself without a changed nature, draws one to sin,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  321. There are some, Dana, who wish to humbly encourage one another to “love and good works”, who “confess their sins to one another and pray for one another that we may be healed”,
    but yes,
    people who exemplify God’s love for one another like Jesus prays for in John 17 seem to be harder to find than we would like.
    that is why I recommended Chan. He left a church he started that had grown to 12,000 or so because he wanted to start over with an emphasis of being the church throughout the week instead of “going to church” once a week.
    Which is ironic given the present discussion, as the govt is working to emphasize a “Christianity” of form and empty of reality that is reduced to a huddle of talk once a week.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  322. reinterpreting god’s law
    which is tied up,
    a bit like the chicken and egg,
    with doubt of God’s goodness and trustworthiness.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  323. But that is what persecution is good for. When being a Christian means suffering for what you believe instead of a way to think good of yourself and put on airs,
    those who confess the Name tend to be more authentic and dependent on God’s grace and power for real.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  324. Tend to be, but not necessarily actually are, more authentic.
    There are a number of people who would merely use it to stroke their egos.
    Look! I am being persecuted! That must mean I am good!
    They are not being persecuted “for righteousness’s sake”.
    Like those people who make a show so everyone can see that they are humble.

    Fortunately for us, those sort of people seem not to frequent this forum.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  325. DRJ 300, well he’s just plain wrong about that.

    The case coming to be heard before Nasreddin Kadi*, and testimony being taken:
    Gay couple: This baker won’t bake us a wedding cake.
    Nasreddin Kadi: Why not?
    Baker: My religion says it would be a sin.
    Gay couple: No, no, it doesn’t. You’re misinterpreting it.
    Nasreddin Kadi: Get out of my courtroom.
    Baker: But who’s right?
    Gay couple: Yeah, who’s right?
    Nasreddin Kadi: You both are as far as the First Amendment is concerned. Now beat it.

    * A Kadi is a judge.

    nk (dbc370)

  326. Your Kadi is wise like Solomon.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  327. Nah, if the Kadi was wise like Solomon, he would have threatened to cut the cake (in half).

    John Hitchcock (922e83)

  328. @Steve 126, 128

    I am 100% for understanding what inspires and motivates people.
    Are you with me, Gil? It could turn out to be ugly.

    Yes Steve I have repeatedly said I am interested in why people believe what they do. I am equally critical of Islam and if there were muslims on this board advocating for public policy based on their holy text I would let them have it.

    …I am convinced he doesn’t believe it.
    But what do I know? I’m just some Islamophobe who read the Sunnah.

    I have never used the term islamaphobe I think it is ridiculous, besides what does it have to do with anything anyway? Why are you convinced I dont actually want to know what motivates people’s beliefs. Besides criticizing religion, thats the second most frequent theme in my posts

    Gil (4e1585)

  329. @John

    At the end of days, Gil’s knee shall bow and Gil’s tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. But then, it very well could be too late for Gil.

    People have been warning about the end of days for almost 2000 years. I think were pretty safe at this point.

    Gil (4e1585)

  330. I would like to point out that happyfeet said (in comment 19) that the religious beliefs expressed by the baker are “more harmful to religious liberty than anything the government is doing.” Thus, despite his claims to the contrary (i.e., comment 275), I don’t think happyfeet disapproves of government sanctions in this case.

    nonono you misunderstand

    when people cloak their petty bigotries in the guise of religious liberty

    the social compact from which the concept of religious liberty draws its puissance is weakened and trivialized

    and i think the pattern of outcomes in these cases is strong evidence of this

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  331. if there were muslims on this board advocating for public policy based on their holy text

    I think the problem is in how the bakery guy is going about fighting this big brother encroachment on his private business. This is not a religious issue. The guy doesn’t like pushy fags what want to twist his arm and make him participate in their sacrilegious ceremony.
    It’s like if the wicked Planned Parenthood wanted to celebrate their 50 millionth baby murder, so they order a baby cake for their company party to cut up.

    Dude has every right to tell PP to go stuff themselves. Likewise dude has the same right to tell Adam & Steve to get their wedding cake elsewhere. I’m not baking a cake for you. Get the Eff out of my shop.

    The government has no right in any circumstances. Dot the gov needs to stfu.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  332. This is all very interesting, but Nick Carter has just pulled out the staples that held him to the wall and, with chains hanging from both wrists and a boarded up window to get through, he has to rush to the rescue of his faithful companions, Chick and Ten-Ko, from the clutches of Black Madge The Fiend In Skirts and her army of villainous hobos. ttyl

    nk (dbc370)

  333. kishnevi (91d5c6) — 8/16/2015 @ 8:01 pm

    you are certainly correct about that, kishnevi.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  334. 8. the rights of Christian vendors are becoming subordinate to the rights of gay couples to purchase wedding cakes

    LOL. This is a major civil rights issue. Right up there with Brown v Board of Education. God forbid, bakers will have to make cakes. Next stop, Auschwitz.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/14/2015 @ 8:26 am

    Yes, it’s actually a major civil rights issue. From the ruling.

    A. Standard of Review

    ¶ 46 Whether the Commission’s order unconstitutionally infringes on Masterpiece’s right to the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment is a question of law that we review de novo. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 499 (1984); Lewis v. Colo. Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., 941 P.2d 266, 270-71 (Colo. 1997).

    B. Applicable Law

    ¶ 47 The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I; Nev. Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 2343, 2347 (2011); Curious Theatre Co. v. Colo. Dep’t of Pub. Health & Env’t, 220 P.3d 544, 551 (Colo. 2009) (“The guarantees of the First Amendment are applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). Article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, which provides greater protection
    of free speech than does the First Amendment, see Lewis, 941 P.2d at 271, provides that “[n]o law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject.”9

    ¶ 48 The freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment includes the “right to refrain from speaking” and prohibits the government from telling people what they must say. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977); Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006) (hereafter FAIR); In re Hickenlooper, 2013 CO 62, ¶ 23. This compelled speech doctrine, on which Masterpiece relies, was first compelled speech doctrine, on which Masterpiece relies, was first articulated by the Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), and has been applied in two lines of cases.

    ¶ 49 The first line of cases prohibits the government from requiring that an individual “speak the government’s message.” FAIR, 547 U.S. at 63; see also Wooley, 430 U.S. at 715-17 (holding that New Hampshire could not require individuals to have its slogan “Live
    Free or Die” on their license plates); Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642 (holding that West Virginia could not require students to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance).

    ¶ 50 These cases establish that the government cannot “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion” by forcing individuals to publicly disseminate its own ideological message. Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642. The government also cannot require “the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on [an individual’s] private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public.” Wooley, 430 U.S. at 713; Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642 (observing that the state cannot “invade[] the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control”).

    And what does the Colorado “Anti-Discrimination” Act, the Commission’s order, and this court’s opinion do? It tells these bakers what signs they may or may not display in their own bakery, which is still private property.

    72 Finally, CADA does not preclude Masterpiece from expressing its views on same-sex marriage — including its religious opposition to it — and the bakery remains free to disassociate itself from its customers’ viewpoints. We recognize that section 24-34-601(2)(a) of CADA prohibits Masterpiece from displaying or disseminating a notice stating that it will refuse to provide its services based on a customer’s desire to engage in same-sex marriage or indicating that those engaging in same-sex marriage are unwelcome at the bakery.11

    That section of CADA does a bit more than that.

    24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation

    (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

    So this Orwellian ruling tells these bakers that no one is saying they can’t object to SSM. Then cites a law that tells these bakers they can’t in any way, directly or indirectly, communicate in just about any way possible that they object to SSM for religious reasons. Because that would make SSM customers feel unwelcome or undesirable.

    What can these bakers do? They can put up signs agreeing with the Commission’s or this court’s opinion of them. That they don’t have a valid religious objection to baking that cake, but they’re discriminating against gays just because they’re gays.

    However, CADA does not prevent Masterpiece from posting a disclaimer in the store or on the Internet indicating that the provision of its services does not constitute an endorsement or approval of conduct protected by CADA. Masterpiece could also
    post or otherwise disseminate a message indicating that CADA requires it not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and other protected characteristics.

    It’s the government’s opinion that these bakers are discriminating against gays because of their sexual orientation. It is not the opinion of the owners of this bakery.

    But after going through how wonderfully the US and Colorado state Constitutions protect the freedom to speak “to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject” the court they don’t have that right.

    But just like in North Korea you are free to express the government’s opinion.

    If you were smarter, carlitos, you’d know this isn’t really about religion.

    http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165havel.html

    Vaclav Havel
    “The Power of the Powerless”
    (1978)

    …{4}The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

    {5}I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

    6}Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

    …{9}The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

    …{14}Let us now imagine that one day something in our greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth. . . .

    {15}The bill is not long in coming. He will be relieved of his post as manager of the shop and transferred to the warehouse. His pay will be reduced. His hopes for a holiday in Bulgaria will evaporate. His children’s access to higher education will be threatened. His superiors will harass him and his fellow workers will wonder about him. Most of those who apply these sanctions, however, will not do so from any authentic inner conviction but simply under pressure from conditions, the same conditions that once pressured the greengrocer to display the official slogans. They will persecute the greengrocer either because it is expected of them, or to demonstrate their loyalty, or simply as part of the general panorama, to which belongs an awareness that this is how situations of this sort are dealt with, that this, in fact, is how things are always done, particularly if one is not to become suspect oneself. The executors, therefore, behave essentially like everyone else, to a greater or lesser degree: as components of the post-totalitarian system, as agents of its automatism, as petty instruments of the social auto-totality.

    {16}Thus the power structure, through the agency of those who carry out the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienating presence in people, will punish him for his rebellion. It must do so because the logic of its automatism and self-defense dictate it. The greengrocer has not committed a simple, individual offense, isolated in its own uniqueness, but something incomparably more serious.

    That is what is going on in Colorado. The court, after telling the bakery owner a pack of lies about his freedom of expression, slips in the reality of his situation. Just baking the cake won’t be enough. Expressing their opinions would land them in hot water with the Colorado Civil Rights speech police again. They need to just shut up. That will work for now. But not for long.

    Aren’t our freedoms enshrined in the Constitution grand? America. Land of the free, home of the brave.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  335. The Colorado constitution says:

    “[n]o law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject.”

    And then Colorado passes a law that you can not speak, write or publish whatever you like on any subject because they invented classes of protected people who have the greater right not to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable.

    And this court sees no conflict. Or pretends there’s no conflict. Because they’re not judges. They’re social justices, and constitutions don’t matter if those dusty old pieces of paper get in their way of their preferred social engineering outcomes.

    And they have the gall to deprive you of your civil rights in the name of civil rights.

    {3}The profound difference between our system-in terms of the nature of power-and what we traditionally understand by dictatorship, a difference I hope is clear even from this quite superficial comparison, has caused me to search for some term appropriate for our system, purely for the purposes of this essay. If I refer to it henceforth as a “post-totalitarian” system, I am fully aware that this is perhaps not the most precise term, but I am unable to think of a better one. I do not wish to imply by the prefix “post” that the system is no longer totalitarian; on the contrary, I mean that it is totalitarian in a way fundamentally different from classical dictatorships, different from totalitarianism as we usually understand it.

    …{9}The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

    {10}Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  336. Some religious views are more equal than others,
    comrade.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  337. Blah blah shellfish menstrual blood animal sacrifice yada yada Sodom Gomorrah inhospitality etc etc David’s polygamy love your neighbor plank in thine own eye blah blah blah…

    I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just making statements for the record.

    Leviticus (fe34d2) — 8/16/2015 @ 6:08 pm

    There is no statement there.

    “Don’t do it” cannot be interpreted into “it’s okay to do it”.
    “It is detestable” cannot be interpreted into “it’s not detestable”.
    “The LORD is unchanging, unchangeable, without a shadow of changing” cannot be interpreted into “He said it was wrong then but it’s fine now”.

    John Hitchcock (922e83) — 8/16/2015 @ 6:12 pm

    See, great example: what about the shellfish, then?!

    Anyway. Peace.

    Leviticus (fe34d2) — 8/16/2015 @ 6:14 pm

    These idiotic responses are exactly what I expected, and are one of the standard “arguments” (there actually is no argument/interpretation there) you find all over the internet from anti-Christians.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  338. 342. Some religious views are more equal than others,
    comrade.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 8/17/2015 @ 7:17 am

    FTFY.

    There is a part of the ruling where the judges wrote:

    …¶ 50 These cases establish that the government cannot “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion” by forcing individuals to publicly disseminate its own ideological message. Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642. The government also cannot require “the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on [an individual’s] private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public.” Wooley, 430 U.S. at 713; Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642 (observing that the state cannot “invade[] the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control”)…

    The ruling may not establish that you must express views that are not your own.

    But this ruling does establish that the government can “prescribe what is orthodox…in matters of opinion” by prohibiting people from expressing views that conflict with government prescribed orthodoxy.

    The government is most definitely invading “the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.”

    The government-prescribed orthodoxy is that opposing SSM is just naked anti-gay animus; read the Kennedy opinion in Windsor. Or this line from Scalia’s dissent from it as quoted in the Columbia Law Review.

    By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.1

    Justice Scalia is certain that the reasoning of the majority opinion in United States v. Windsor2 will govern the outcome of future state-level marriage equality litigation (despite protestations to the contrary by fellow dissenter Chief Justice Roberts3 and the author of the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy4)…

    (Scalia was right, wasn’t he, and everyone knew Kennedy was lying when he protested that he wasn’t doing what everyone could see he was doing.)

    The important thing is that the court in the Colorado case is simply adopting the SCOTUS logic, and that it could care less what the Bible these people live by says about marriage. They just hate gays.

    So it’s difficult to see what signs they could put up in their bakery saying they will abide by the law but for religious reasons they oppose SSM. It will be a given that any such sign means they are violating section 24-34-601(2)(a) of CADA (see #340) because opposing SSM = discriminating against gays.

    The Oregon case was instructive in this regard as their Discrimination in Public Accommodations Act language seems if anything less broad than Colorado’s. Yet as Popehat observed it’s impossible to know what public statements by the Oregon bakers expressing support for marriage only between a man and woman, opposing SSM, opposing the Oregon public accommodations law, and simply vowing to keep fighting that law wouldn’t violate the law.

    http://popehat.com/2015/07/08/lawsplainer-so-are-those-christian-cake-bakers-in-oregon-unconstitutionally-gagged-or-not/

    … My modified conclusion is that the Oregon Labor Commissioner’s order is very troubling in light of the facts of the case because it’s not clear what it bans. Based on the evidence before the Commissioner, the order may or may not purport to ban the Kleins from saying that they intend to continue to litigate the issue or that they believe that the order is unconstitutional.

    the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing, or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued, or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement, or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.

    That’s the language that led me to conclude, initially, that the Oregon Labor Commission did not “gag” the bakers unconstitutionally.

    …Taken in the abstract, Commissioner Avakian’s prohibition isn’t a problem. But in the context of his factual findings and the facts of this case, it is vague and ambiguous, and suggests that the government seeks to punish statements disagreeing with Oregon’s anti-discrimination laws.

    The only two examples in this Colorado case of acceptable language for signs that the court says could be displayed in the bakery in question, should these bakers want to make clear they don’t endorse gay marriage, begin with the premise they agree with the court that they illegally discriminated against gays. But they don’t agree with the court. And the language also doesn’t make clear they don’t approve of gay marriage, so I take it singling that issue out would violate the CADA. This court has adopted Avakian’s view on the matter. Disagreeing with the court and the commission and the law would show intent to illegally discriminate. And that would violate the law.

    Again, the court’s suggestion is simply that these bakers can have any opinion they want on the subject of marriage as long as it’s the government’s opinion while in public.

    This assault on free speech isn’t going to be limited to expressing views that are religiously based. In fact, if you look at college campus speech codes, they haven’t been.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  339. I would like to point out that happyfeet said (in comment 19) that the religious beliefs expressed by the baker are “more harmful to religious liberty than anything the government is doing.” Thus, despite his claims to the contrary (i.e., comment 275), I don’t think happyfeet disapproves of government sanctions in this case.

    nonono you misunderstand

    when people cloak their petty bigotries in the guise of religious liberty

    the social compact from which the concept of religious liberty draws its puissance is weakened and trivialized

    and i think the pattern of outcomes in these cases is strong evidence of this

    happyfeet (5546fb) — 8/17/2015 @ 2:13 am

    By the “pattern of outcomes” I assume he means the sanctions against the baker. But it’s clear that he doesn’t believe that the baker’s refusal to bake the cake is in any way related to genuine religious belief. Rather they’re just pretending to have a religious reason. Since there’s no actual religious belief underlying the baker’s refusal, religious liberty is not actually being weakened. He contradicts himself (not for the first time).

    Also it only follows, according to his logic, that the baker’s stance is harming religious liberty because of the government’s actions. So how could that be more harmful than anything the government is doing? Outside of the government’s action there is no apparent harm to religious liberty. Another moronic contradiction.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  340. Gerald A:

    But it’s clear that he doesn’t believe that the baker’s refusal to bake the cake is in any way related to genuine religious belief.

    I agree, although happyfeet might say it’s not an acceptable (as opposed to genuine) belief. I suspect happyfeet thinks people he considers bigots are genuinely bigoted, but those beliefs are not acceptable in our modern post-SSM society.

    To me, the problem with happyfeet’s analysis is that he thinks some beliefs are not worthy of government protection. Thus, Christians or any religious believer who opposes SSM should not be able to claim First Amendment protection based on their religious beliefs. The notion that some beliefs aren’t “worthy” enough strikes me as very dangerous.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  341. happyfeet will probably respond that he never said “some beliefs are not worthy of government protection.” In fact, he might say, he wants the government to stay out of cases like this. This is, of course, a disingenuous position. The government and the laws are going to protect gays from discrimination, and the only way for Christian bakers to protect themselves is by asserting their right to government protection under the First Amendment and other provisions. If the government “stays out” then the Christian bakers will lose, as happyfeet obviously wants and knows.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  342. i don’t think this is a religious belief i think it’s a cake decision where you decide not to bake a cake

    baking a cake for a gay marriage does not implicate you in that gay marriage and guess what

    the majority of gay marriagings are civil not religious

    and guess also what else

    these gay people are the *only* people these hateful baker people single out as being unworthy of the cake – that’s deeply weird and suggests that something other than fidelity to the jesus christ is driving this decision

    and for what I ask you?

    what is gained by doing the prejudice on the gay people?

    is there a gay marriage deterrent effect?

    No.

    Do the people what are denied the cake stop being gay?

    No.

    Does the silly baker secure a spot in heaven at the right hand of God?

    No.

    What is achieved? Nothing is achieved the baker just treated some homosexuals like crap for no reason.

    It makes me so sad, the senselessness of this.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  343. is a blue monday of toil and drudgery

    we need the song of the happiness

    we need the weekend song!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  344. What is achieved is the bakers achieve obedience to The Almighty’s demands, and don’t succomb to the god of this world’s wishes (Satan). That is what is achieved.

    John Hitchcock (663e02)

  345. brb

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  346. ok here we go

    i defy you to be dour and sullen now

    hah!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  347. God never said jack about baking cakes he’s a very very cake-positive deity this is why we always have cake at church stuff hello

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  348. You either serve Satan or you serve Providence. There is no third option. And throwing out large sections of The LORD’s Holy Word because you don’t like what it says, shows you are serving Satan. No hyperbole involved in this statement.

    John Hitchcock (663e02)

  349. 346. …I agree, although happyfeet might say it’s not an acceptable (as opposed to genuine) belief. I suspect happyfeet thinks people he considers bigots are genuinely bigoted, but those beliefs are not acceptable in our modern post-SSM society…

    DRJ (1dff03) — 8/17/2015 @ 10:47 am

    Because of people like happyfeet I was prompted to look up Vaclav Havel essay, The Power of Powerlessness. It was because of run-ins with people like happyfeet who decided what beliefs were not acceptable in post-totalitarian states of the old Soviet block that Havel became a well-known dissident. And after he got out of prison for holding unacceptable beliefs, and the wall fell, the first democratically elected President of Czechoslovakia in over 40 years.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  350. get thee behind me picklepoo

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  351. The LORD declared homosexuality an abomination and a sin. He also demanded that nobody aid in someone else’s sin because that makes it your sin as well.

    HF, your feigned ignorance about what this concerns and what your final Judge demands is totally asinine and dishonest.

    John Hitchcock (663e02)

  352. baking a cake only helps people have cake

    it has nothing to do with whether or not they’re gay

    these are independent variables

    gay people are gay cause of they’re on the right track baby they were born that way

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  353. I use to think the neighbor’s cats that they abandoned to live on the porch when they moved, use to think they were gay.

    Because they were cats. Hard not to respect their privacy. Then one day kittens.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  354. Does the silly baker secure a spot in heaven at the right hand of God?

    No.

    That is your opinion, your belief. Other people believe the opposite or some variation of this belief. You don’t get to be the decider of what everyone else believes.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  355. To create something specifically for a sinful event is sinful. To be intentionally obtuse on that fact is also to be sinful.

    John Hitchcock (4b553d)

  356. i don’t think this is a religious belief i think it’s a cake decision where you decide not to bake a cake

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/17/2015 @ 11:21 am

    So then happyfeet, as I said, there’s no erosion of freedom of religion going on, since, according to you, it’s unrelated to religious belief.

    If we follow that line of reasoning nothing anyone does relates to religious belief. Everything is a this decision or a that decision.

    Your unshakable belief that you know what’s really going on in anyone’s mind and then combining that knowledge with name calling strikes me as unhinged.

    these gay people are the *only* people these hateful baker people single out as being unworthy of the cake – that’s deeply weird and suggests that something other than fidelity to the jesus christ is driving this decision

    This gets back to the bible, which you don’t acknowledge, as I was saying to Leviticus. Not only do not acknowledge it but you don’t acknowledge that you don’t acknowledge it.

    A number of us perceive you as weird. But I wouldn’t be so strange as to claim that that proves anything about what you’re thinking.

    You’re continual references to these people as hateful, bigoted etc. in a kind of Joseph Goebbels fashion is extremely obnoxious.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  357. #362
    Actually happyfeet is continually referring to a bunch of us on this board as hateful, bigoted etc. in a kind of Joseph Goebbels fashion. But even if he wasn’t it would still be obnoxious.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  358. Traveling all day,
    will have more to say tomorrow in reference to OT prophets and Rom 1,
    (prophets to receive judgment themselves if they do not delver the message).

    until then, if someone has been following it, it seems that a same sex couple have sued a specific county clerk in KY to make her issue a wedding license, in spite of the fact she has declined to issue any licenses since the SCOTUS ruling and there are other clerks at the office willing to process them.
    [Edited comment,pending fact finding]
    And the whatever jurisdiction court ruled against her and told her she had to, but then was generous enough to grant a stay pending appeal to circuit court.

    Anyone familiar with it, or wants to look it up before I get to it?

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  359. Gerald,
    yes,.
    but he will not be honest enough to acknowledge it
    he could show enough respect to call me a bigot to my face instead of saying it cutesy

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  360. here it is:
    http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/08/12/judge-orders-kentucky-clerk-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses

    [Comment again edited, in spite of facts confirmed]

    one of the plaintiff’s lawyers is just amazed that someone would stick by their religious convictions instead of bow to the SCOTUS

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  361. Now, I do imagine the fact that she has an official post which includes issuing marriage licenses is different than privately baking cakes and refusing to bake any wedding cakes for anybody.

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  362. 358. baking a cake only helps people have cake

    it has nothing to do with whether or not they’re gay

    these are independent variables

    gay people are gay cause of they’re on the right track baby they were born that way

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/17/2015 @ 12:10 pm

    And it’s a sin to help gay people have cake at their wedding, happyfascist.

    Matthew 19

    1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

    3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    They can have a Birthday cake. They can have any other kind of cake. But they can’t have a cake to mock God.

    Only a fascist would try to force a Christian to do something he believes mocks God.

    You are just such a fascist. And I use fascist and Stalinist interchangeably as there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference.

    You’d fit in well as cop in communist China, happyfascist.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-is-forcing-muslim-shopowners-to-sell-alcohol-and-cigarettes-to-weaken-islam-10228410.html

    Chinese authorities have ordered Muslim shopkeepers and restaurant owners in a village in its troubled Xinjiang region to sell alcohol and cigarettes, and promote them in “eye-catching displays,” in an attempt to undermine Islam’s hold on local residents, Radio Free Asia (RFA) reported. Establishments that failed to comply were threatened with closure and their owners with prosecution.

    Attacking religion. It’s all the rage with the enemies of freedom everywhere. It’s because you’re an enemy of freedom, happyfascist, that I thought of Vaclav Havel and his struggle with the enemies of freedom in his day.

    By the way, this is exactly what’s going on in this country. Forcing Christians to violate their believes and service gay weddings has nothing to do with wedding cakes or floral arrangements or photography. Because there are plenty of people who will sell gay people wedding cakes or floral weddings or show up to photograph them.

    No, it’s about trying to break people of their belief in their religion by making the free exercise of religion impossible, happyfascist.

    At least the Chinese Muslims don’t have to listen to some CHICOM happyfascist acting really dumb by saying crap like “Selling beer only helps people have beer.

    it has nothing to do with that they’re not Muslim

    these are independent variables

    Non-Muslims aren’t Muslims cause of they’re on the right track baby they were born that way

    Now bake me a cake pour me a beer, Christian Muslim!”

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  363. She doesn’t have a leg to stand on. She is the County Clerk, not one of several assistants in the County Clerk’s office. To get a different County Clerk, you’d have to travel to a different county.

    nk (dbc370)

  364. And the marriage license is the Caesar part of marriage. For the God part, I would give the edge to a wedding cake over a piece of paper with a government seal.

    nk (dbc370)

  365. Establishments that failed to comply were threatened with closure and their owners with prosecution.

    Gee, where do we keep seeing this? Oh, I remember. In happyfascist’s Amerikkka.

    People who hate religion, in particular Christians, as well as the Constitution have been looking for ways to destroy the First Amendment have been trying to find ways to destroy the First Amendment for years. Up until the Obamunist, they often failed. SSM is one way to do that. There is another way.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-victory-for-religious-freedom-illinois-pharmacists-win-conscience-rights

    The case, Morr-Fitz v. Quinn, commenced in 2005 when then-Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) issued an “Emergency Rule” mandating that all pharmacies and pharmacists stock and fill prescriptions for drugs, including Plan B (“the morning-after pill”)—which can act as an abortifacient.

    The rule appeared targeted directly at religious objectors. For example, at the time the mandate was issued, the governor argued that pharmacy owners and pharmacists should “find another profession” if their religious and moral convictions would not allow them to comply with the mandate, threatening them with significant penalties ranging from prosecution, to steep fines, to loss of professional licenses.

    Gee, just like in China. And now, just like in Amerikkka.

    At trial, the state produced no evidence that a religious objection to stocking or dispensing the abortion-inducing drugs had prevented even a single person from gaining access to them.

    The government also admitted that pharmacies were permitted to refuse to sell drugs for a host of “common sense business reasons” but not for religious ones. Taking these factors together, the court concluded that the mandate was targeted at the religious objectors. Despite this resounding loss, the state appealed the trial court’s decision to the Illinois Court of Appeals.

    And you know what? Letting Christian bakers decline to sell wedding cakes to gay couples would not prevent a single gay couple from getting a wedding cake.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-court-rules-pharmacists-cannot-be-forced-to-sell-morning-after-pill/

    A Federal District Court Judge has ruled that a pharmacist cannot be required to stock and dispense the so-called Plan B birth control pill if he has a moral objection to abortifacients:

    …“The state will argue the rules are neutral, generally applicable and rationally relating to the legitimate interest of the state in promoting timely delivery of lawful medication,” a spokeswoman for McKenna told the Olympian newspaper in November. “The plain language of the rules applies to all time sensitive medications.”

    U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton, however, ruled that the “Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable. They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted.”

    This was a coordinated effort. Note the rules in both states were almost identical. Down to the fact that despite saying the governments were only interested in getting “time sensitive” medicines to people. Yet, pharmacies could refuse to stock this “time sensitive” medicine for all sorts of business reasons. Such as low demand or lack of space. And there were a lot of other time sensitive medicines that pharmacies didn’t have to carry. And there were never any problems because in all cases the pharmacies involved would just refer the customer to another pharmacy. And in Washington, as in Illinois, the government could not prove even one single person had ever failed to gain access to any time sensitive drugs.

    In both states they only eliminated the conscience exemption for just one type of drug; abortifacients. And two groups were always involved; Democrat pols and Planned Parenthood.

    So, this brings us to the Obamacare contraceptive/abortifacient mandate. Again, brought to you by a Christian-hating Dem pol and Planned Parenthood. And for the same reason, and its not to make sure women get contraceptives and abortifacients. It’s to make sure Christians have to pay for them.

    Just like the CHICOMs aren’t forcing Muslim shop owners to sell alcohol and cigarettes because the Han Chinese are having any trouble finding beer and smokes, Obama isn’t trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy health plans that provide contraceptives and abortifacients because he thinks elderly Catholic nuns need those items.

    The idea is simply to force them to violate their beliefs. It’s one big Stalinist world that hates freedom, happyfascist. You must be pleased as punch.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  366. To me, the problem with happyfeet’s analysis is that he thinks some beliefs are not worthy of government protection. Thus, Christians or any religious believer who opposes SSM should not be able to claim First Amendment protection based on their religious beliefs. The notion that some beliefs aren’t “worthy” enough strikes me as very dangerous.

    @DRJ

    So all beliefs are worthy? What if it is my belief that healing is through faith alone and I dont want my kids going to Doctors? What if I believe that god made a pact with my people and we must chop off our left pinky fingers ritually at 8 days of age? What if it is my belief that I must live with 25 cats in my home? etc.

    @John

    What is achieved is the bakers achieve obedience to The Almighty’s demands, and don’t succomb to the god of this world’s wishes (Satan). That is what is achieved.

    I think John that first you have to demonstrate that there is an almighty being before you can claim that people need to follow him in order to acheive something. Why do you think that your version of an almighty being is the correct one?

    Gil (4e1585)

  367. Only a fascist would try to force a Christian to do something he believes mocks God.

    God bless you and your walls of text Steve.
    Lets focus on this point. Does your statement apply to all religions? Are we fascists for not letting Muslims institute Sharia law? Is the answer “No, because we have the right book”?

    Gil (4e1585)

  368. I have no need to demonstrate anything, Gil. Millions of people in the US already know it to be true. It is these people you are wanting to violate the Almighty’s commands. The people who worship the Almighty. You, who have rejected Him wholeheartedly, aren’t going to follow His commands anyway.

    John Hitchcock (4b553d)

  369. Gil, you are an anti-Christian and a “little a” anti-Christ. Nothing anybody says will make you change your evil hatred and your fascistic desire to crush Christianity. You’re a known commodity, a poison to society.

    John Hitchcock (4b553d)

  370. I have no need to demonstrate anything, Gil. Millions of people in the US already know it to be true.

    But truth is not a popularity contest right? Millions of muslims know Allah is the one true god for example but you (rightly) dont accept that. And actually you do need to demonstrate something if you are making claims about reality that you want people to take seriously. Do you believe people who claim to be alien abductees? Would you believe me if I told you my brother had 4 arms? Why would you not apply your same standards to an iron age document with even more fantastic claims than those for which we have no evidence, and in fact it can be argued that we have evidence that indicates the opposite.

    Gil, you are an anti-Christian and a “little a” anti-Christ. Nothing anybody says will make you change your evil hatred and your fascistic desire to crush Christianity.

    Im not close minded, nor do I hate Christians. Im the one here asking you things, and you are the one going on tirades about me suffering in the end times and my evil hatred. It’s sad really.

    Gil (4e1585)

  371. 366. …one of the plaintiff’s lawyers is just amazed that someone would stick by their religious convictions instead of bow to the SCOTUS

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b) — 8/17/2015 @ 7:42 pm

    Liberal progressivess just can’t believe there’s any higher moral authority than government. Especially now that they have Chicago Jesus to worship.

    We’ll see this when, not if, they start demanding Christians edit all that “anti-gay hate speech” out of that stupid old Scripture. After all, it’s just a book. Not like there’s anything sacred about it. H8rs.

    It won’t help that a lot of mainline Protestant have already edited that dumb old book to make Jesus more palatable to modern tastes. It’s not like he’s god; he was just a first century Jew who didn’t know better about gays. Seriously.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/i-am-both-muslim-and-christian/

    …Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

    On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

    She does both, she says, because she’s Christian and Muslim.

    Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she’s ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she’s also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.

    …Christianity has historically regarded Jesus as the son of God and God incarnate, both fully human and fully divine. Muslims, though they regard Jesus as a great prophet, do not see him as divine and do not consider him the son of God.

    “I don’t think it’s possible” to be both, Fredrickson said, just like “you can’t be a Republican and a Democrat.”

    I hate to tell Mr. Fredrickson this, but the difference is a tad more profound than trying to be bot a Republican and Democrat.

    If you don’t believe Jesus is indeed God, He died for the forgiveness of our sins, and was resurrected and ascended into heaven then your are in no way a Christian.

    If you believe any of those things then as far as Islam is concerned you have committed the unforgivable sin of shirk, assigning a partner to Allah. And the prophet Jesus will return as a jihadist on judgement day and cast Christians into hellfire himself for daring to believe he was a god alongside Allah.

    Surat Al-Mā’idah (The Table Spread) 5:72-75

    They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

    Surat Al-Mā’idah (The Table Spread) 5:116

    And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

    You simply can’t believe both that Jesus is Lord the way to everlasting life in heaven and believe Jesus will cast you into hell forever for daring to think he was anything more than a man.

    But the Episcopalians apparently don’t think Jesus was God anymore, so why not be Muslim, too.

    So with a lot of denominations everything is negotiable. And those denominations that stick to the core tenets of the faith and refuse to rewrite the Bible will be accused of doing so out of sheer hatred of gays.

    Because, look, the Unitarians and the Presbyterians have done it!

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  372. Gil, and I mean this sincerely…

    *BURP*

    John Hitchcock (4b553d)

  373. I know John.
    After a deep look into your motivations for a system of belief that you organize your life around you came up with a BURP.

    Nice job.

    Gil (4e1585)

  374. 373. God bless you and your walls of text Steve.
    Lets focus on this point. Does your statement apply to all religions? Are we fascists for not letting Muslims institute Sharia law? Is the answer “No, because we have the right book”?

    Gil (4e1585) — 8/17/2015 @ 9:12 pm

    What’s with this “we?”

    You apparently haven’t noticed Gil. But if you check, I’m not trying to make you live by Catholic Canon law, am I?

    But maybe “we” do have the right book. Do you live according to Roman Catholic Canon law?

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

    CODE OF CANON LAW

    I wouldn’t force a Muslim to obey it. I wouldn’t let a Muslim force me to live by Sharia. I think that’s fair, and not very fascistic. I also wouldn’t force a Muslim, or an observant Jew for that matter, to make me a ham sandwich.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  375. Gil, having no religion IS your religion. You just aren’t sharp enough to recognize that sad fact. Now sod off.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  376. Gil… all your beliefs are a coverup for insecurity. Do you believe that?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  377. You apparently haven’t noticed Gil. But if you check, I’m not trying to make you live by Catholic Canon law, am I?

    I didnt say that you were. But there are Christians who are – at least they are trying to affect public policy based on their religious point of view. Which is fine of course, I just think it is a mistaken perspective.

    What’s with this “we?”

    Hi Steve, the “we” is just a general term for the public to make it easier to discuss. My point is there may be muslims who believe not living under Sharia is “mocking god”. In the US of course we do not abide by Sharia and we would stop anyone who tried to institute it. You said someone who forces another to do something they consider mocking god to be a fascist. Then of course there is the problem of fringe beliefs about what mocking god is. How are those evaluated?

    Gil (4e1585)

  378. Gil, having no religion IS your religion. You just aren’t sharp enough to recognize that sad fact……all your beliefs are a coverup for insecurity.

    Religion requires faith, I require no faith to be an atheist I only accept things based on evidence.

    I am the one here open to discussion, you and John H are the ones who are reduced to distraction and telling me to “sod off”. Seems to me you are the insecure one.

    Gil (4e1585)

  379. Still sleeping with your sister, Gil?

    mg (31009b)

  380. i can’t really reply much this morning Mr. 57 cause of i gotta get in to the office

    Letting Christian bakers decline to sell wedding cakes to gay couples would not prevent a single gay couple from getting a wedding cake.

    yes yes this is true

    only quibble i have is you should say “certain of your more petty Christians” instead of just “Christians” for to be more accurate

    millions of Christians have no trouble whatsoever with gay marriage or making cakes and such for the ceremonies

    tomorrow is when my cake comes for my friend M he’s a muslim so I’m probably gonna go to hell but he’s a yank and never had hummingbird cake his whole life and this. will. not stand.

    Not on my watch.

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  381. Gil (4e1585) — 8/17/2015 @ 9:02 pm
    Gil (4e1585) — 8/17/2015 @ 9:12 pm

    Any belief should be protected by the First Amendment. If a certain belief causes someone to actually harm others that does not deserve protection.

    Sharia law is not just a belief but a legal system. So you’re conflating unrelated things (shocka!).

    Based on various post you have made, it seems you object to the protection of beliefs that you don’t share, which is fascistic/totalitarian. I believe in fact you would enshrine your belief as the “correct” belief as a matter of law. Therefore you would have no reasonable grounds to object to a law making it a crime to be an atheist (other than “I’m right and you’re wrong” but I could make the same claim). It’s worth noting we’ve have never had such a law in this nation. You’re also likely a hypocrite, since if such a law was proposed and a constitutional amendment allowing such a law, you would object on the grounds that you have a right to be an atheist.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  382. There are people who call themselves Christians who agree with happyfeet.
    And there are people who call themselves Christians who agree with the Apostle Paul.

    And we get to pick which we think is more credible.

    And to be monotone in response to feets’ monotone, as I’ve said before, and will discuss later,
    what is clearly written in Romans says that for a person like feets to encourage the behavior of a same-sex lifestyle,
    is worse than engaging in it.
    I do not say this because I hate or fear non-hetero people (who I have treated and kept alive)
    but because I believe they are caught in a situation that is harmful to themselves now and for eternity.
    Just as all of us are caught in such situations untill we are set free through the grace and mercy of God.
    Call me an idiot, bigot, crazy, demon-possessed, or fool if you like.

    Since she took an oath, I guess to uphold the law, she either needs to uphold the law as it now stands or resign.
    Just like President Obama.

    Perhaps the main issue for discussion is how happy is the general public with this chain of events, whether they regret it, and are they at all interested in reversing it.

    Once upon a time civil disobedience was seen as a courageous thing. I guess I agree it makes sense that the issue does make a difference.

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  383. Well, it’s not even as harsh as that. Even government employees are entitled to a reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs. For an easy example, the USDA has a gazillion inspectors and it’s reasonable for Goldberg and Abdulaziz to be assigned to the beef, and O’Reilly and Gonzalez to be assigned to the pork. But this county clerk is the only one there is in that county.

    nk (dbc370)

  384. … and it’s reasonable for Goldberg and Abdulaziz to be assigned to the beef, and O’Reilly and Gonzalez to be assigned to the pork.

    It may be reasonable but what it really is is accommodating. It’s what we used to do before Obama put us to war against each other. It’s hard to work together when we’re at each others throats. But that’s what Obama wants, then we’re not at his throat.

    But this county clerk is the only one there is in that county.

    Then go to the next county. If there was only one supermarket in your county would you sit there and starve? Their convenience fails to trump the clerks Constitutional rights. Unless we no longer have them and are now in a banana republic.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  385. @Gerald

    If a certain belief causes someone to actually harm others that does not deserve protection.

    Does lopping off a piece of someone’s member at 8 days old count as harm?

    The rest of your comment is so full of crap that im not going to respond.

    Gil (febf10)

  386. Gil 372:


    372.To me, the problem with happyfeet’s analysis is that he thinks some beliefs are not worthy of government protection. Thus, Christians or any religious believer who opposes SSM should not be able to claim First Amendment protection based on their religious beliefs. The notion that some beliefs aren’t “worthy” enough strikes me as very dangerous.

    @DRJ

    So all beliefs are worthy? What if it is my belief that healing is through faith alone and I dont want my kids going to Doctors? What if I believe that god made a pact with my people and we must chop off our left pinky fingers ritually at 8 days of age? What if it is my belief that I must live with 25 cats in my home? etc.

    Yes, all beliefs are worthy, but the courts may decide that some beliefs are outweighed by other concerns. Thus, for instance, adult Jehovah’s Witnesses are free to decline life-saving blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs. They can also decline treatment for their children, but courts typically rule that the child’s interests override the parents’ religious beliefs. The beliefs aren’t unworthy but the child’s interests take precedence.

    Similarly, it’s not a little pinky finger but male circumcision for religious reasons is unquestionably allowed in the U.S. My guess is that removing pinky fingers wouldn’t be allowed for children for the same reason as the Jehovah’s Witness example above, but if a group of adults wanted to remove their little pinky fingers for religious reasons then they probably could. After all, in some states they can handle venomous snakes for religious reasons with little or no government interference.

    Finally, you might run into problems with city ordinances limiting the number of animals you can keep, but you might if it were part of a sincere religious belief. (I’m not an expert on world-wide religions, but cats were worshipped in Egypt so there may be a religion where hoarding cats is appropriate.) Or you could keep the cats to sacrifice (hopefully not). The Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that a city can’t ban religious animal sacrifice. Again, I hope you don’t do this. I like cats.

    Thus, Gil, my earlier point stands: You don’t get to be the decider of what everyone else believes. The Constitution and the courts have historically given a wide berth to religious beliefs, restricting them only when the religious-based acts harm others or conflict with other rights. And even acts are protected when they are primarily speech, such as the Westboro Church case, which IMO is the most unworthy religious speech there is. As I said earlier, the question is not whether someone’s religious ideas are unworthy.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  387. Actually there is a medical argument that circumcision decreases STI transmission,as well as some childhood problems with UTI’s,etc.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/

    Besides, I can’t take seriously anyone who is against male infant circumcision because of the discomfort caused who is for abortion of unborn children greater than 20 weeks of age.
    http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/
    I would be surprised if many anti-circ folk are also anti-abortion (at least past 20 weeks).

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  388. Has interest in this thread/topic been exhausted, or is there interest in additional reasoning to support the baker’s view?
    (FWIW, I am not convinced that refusal to participate in a SSW by a baker/photographer/musician, etc. is the only legitimate response by someone who believes in the historic, apostolic Christian faith, but I do think it is utterly defensible.)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2610 secs.