Marriage News Religious Liberty

Arizona Calligraphy Businesswomen Under Fire For Christian Beliefs

Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of an upscale stationery company in Arizona, are facing possible jail time for refusing to design wedding invitations for a same-sex marriage, something their Christian beliefs simply do not support. The two friends met in a Bible study and quickly realized their desire to pursue similar interests, leading them to open Brush & Nib Studio.

The attorney representing Duka and Koski, Jonathan Scruggs of Alliance Defending Freedom, describes how his clients are willing to serve others, but they refuse to promote a message that “demeans others, promotes racism or objectifies the female body.” On top of these ideas, they do not design artwork that goes against their faith and beliefs on traditional marriage. Phoenix, Arizona, however, seems bound and determined to force the two women to either conform to the liberal agenda or fold their business, or else face a jail sentence.

An Arizona-based coalition of businesses supporting efforts to advance liberal LGBT policy within the state, ONE Community, is supported by several major corporations including Bank of America, Coca-Cola, and Uber. Click here to find out more about ONE Community and its members and learn how this group is influencing actions being taken against the calligraphy duo.

The liberal agenda continues to persecute Christians and anyone who does not conform to the ideas of the far left. We encourage you to check out our corporate research database and take a closer look at where some of the brands and businesses you shop with most often stand on all the issues.

  • WilliamtheFirst

    This is pretty sad…huge corporations and a government against a couple of people who have convictions based on faith, not their bank account. This country has turned into a frightening place to operate. Unless you adhere to the “approved” ideology, you are simply screwed. Hopefully, this will begin to change on January 20th, 2017.

    • Jimmy King

      Why? Are we throwing away the constitution on January 20th? If you open a business, you may not refuse service to people who are in a protective class, based upon those attributes. It’s not “huge coporations” against these people. It’s the law

      • WilliamtheFirst

        This is not about “throwing out” the Constitution, the
        Progressive Liberals are already on the road to doing just that. No, this about stopping that process.

        Based on your interpretation, since “Caucasians” are not specifically
        cited on the list of acceptable “protective classes” these ladies can legally
        refuse a Caucasian couple their services. Are you are OK with that?

        These two women have not attempted to stop this (or any) gay
        couple from getting married, they simply do not want to be a part of it based on their beliefs.

        I am not saying that I agree with them – – from a business standpoint they are locking themselves out
        of a potentially lucrative market.

        What I am saying is that when a government – in this case
        the Phoenix City Council, begins to force people and businesses to perform
        based on political ideology we are on a slippery slope indeed. When we get into the business of “tweaking” in
        place non-discrimination ordinances by adding and removing certain groups due
        to political pressure we only accelerate the slide.

        I am sure there are other companies out there that would gladly do business with gay couples and
        one of the best features of a free marketplace is that we, the people, have the
        choice of who we do business with and there are always 5 others waiting in line
        to provide whatever it is we are looking for…the market itself will bear out
        those who do or do not provide such services.

        Finally, “One Community” is most assuredly supported (funded) by some hefty corporations.

        • DT

          WilliamtheFirst

          Just substitute the word “Negroes” everywhere the any term for homosexual is used and rethink the issue.

          The purpose of a business is to generate income. Turning away jobs for any reason other than you are just too busy, is foolish.

          Keep your faith private, just like Jesus said in Matthew 6. Make your business public and follow the rules of Caesar, what is Caesar’s. (American Businesses need a license from Caesar–the government–to operate.)

          The government is NOT forcing anyone to do something against their own beliefs. Businesses don’t have beliefs. People do and it’s a business that is being sued.

          “Protected classes” are just a way to tell the bigots that they can’t be bigots when running a business. No one American is any more protected than any other Americans. But sometimes you have to spell it out for the ignorant Americans.

          To be clear, the government – in this case the Phoenix City Council, is NOT forcing businesses to perform based on political ideology. They are forcing them to be unbiased on who their customers are. Force the bigots to not be bigots. It’s about treating all American Consumers the same.

          • glenbo

            >”the Phoenix City Council, is NOT forcing businesses to perform based on political ideology. They are forcing them to be unbiased on who their customers are.”<

            Well said!

          • Mark Schmidt

            Again, help me understand your argument. Why is it that “The Boss” and other musicians can tell Donald Trump he can’t use their music and clothes designers can tell Donald Trump that they won’t design clothes for his wife, yet this lady should be forced to go against her 1st Amendment protected beliefs? Are the protections only for certain people?

          • Guest4ever

            Nope! Negroes, as you say, are born that way. They actually have DNA that makes them that way.

            Sodomy is NOT in the genes. Haven’t found it!

          • DT

            Spoken like a true bigot.

            So how do YOU explain hetrosexuality?

            I’m guessing you can’t explain any sexuality, but yet decide it’s okay to be a bigot for the sexuality you claim you are not.

          • Guest4ever

            All sexuality is learned. Take the hint. By the way, I NEVER claimed I was, or was not, a bigot! Good bye!

          • glenbo

            >”All sexuality is learned.”<
            What??
            Please explain.

          • DT

            All sexuality is learned? REALLY? Who taught YOU your sexuality? What were the lessons like? PLEASE, by all means, go into great detail and explain this claim. Did it include a boy doll and a girl doll and the slapping of your hands when you reached for the doll whose gender matched your own?

        • glenbo

          >”when a government – in this case the Phoenix City
          Council, begins to force people and businesses to perform based on political ideology”<

          Do you think they are being “forced” to do something?”
          How so?
          Can you give me an example of any Christian business owner
          that was “forced” to accommodate a homosexual against his/her will?
          I am unclear of your claim of “force.”
          Can you please clarify?

          • Mark Schmidt

            Glenbo – Your arguments are based completely on subjectivity. What you are saying is that it is ok for someone to discriminate against someone else as long as it is for the right reasons. How in the world do you maintain that sort of logic without trampling on the rights of one side or the other. What is good for the goose is good for the gander! If a designer is allowed to say they won’t provide services to Trump, or anyone else, there is absolutely no difference in the level of discrimination. Because the designer doesn’t agree with the beliefs of Trump, they are allowed to discriminate? Really, you are going to argue that point? If the law is no one should discriminate, then it should apply to ALL – period. To say a designer doesn’t have to provide services to Trump (and this is just an example), or a song writer can say “You can’t play my song.” solely because I disagree with you (especially on false beliefs regarding Trump – you are listening too much to the media), it is completely wrong when Christian’s are forced to provide services or be run out of business.

          • glenbo

            >”Your arguments are based completely on subjectivity””it is completely wrong when Christian’s are forced to provide services or be run out of business.”<
            This has not and will not happen.
            Example of any "Christian" business owner having been "forced" to do anything, please?
            No "Christian" business owner was ever "run out of business." They either brought the wrath on themselves, or CHOSE to close their doors.

          • Mark Schmidt

            Your reasoning is so flawed (both Glenbo and JimmyKing) that it is hard to respond. By who’s beliefs has Trump fallen into the supposed categories of discrimination? Yours? Are we going to go back to the witch hunt days when someone (e.g. the press or you) decides a person is a witch? Why is it when someone’s beliefs differ from others that the first thing out of their mouth is you are a bigot, racist, or homophobe? Some of the most intolerant people are the ones screaming the loudest for tolerance. They are only tolerant of you if you believe like they do. Christians are accepting of everyone. While we may not agree with all lifestyles, we also know we all are sinners and it is not our job to judge. Yes, the church is full of hypocrites, but we recognize that and know it is only through Him that we can repent and move forward. However, we also expect and deserve to be protected by the same laws that non believers receive protections from.

          • glenbo

            >”By who’s beliefs has Trump fallen into the supposed
            categories of discrimination?”” Why is it when someone’s beliefs differ from others
            that the first thing out of their mouth is you are a bigot, racist, or
            homophobe?”” Some of the most intolerant people are the ones
            screaming the loudest for tolerance.”” They are only tolerant of you if you believe like they
            do.”” Christians are accepting of everyone.”” we all are sinners and it is not our job to judge”” we also expect and deserve to be protected”<

            “Protected” from exactly what?

            You didn't answer my question:
            Can you give me an example of any "Christian" business owner having been "forced" to do anything, please?

          • Mark Schmidt

            There you go … We are having a conversation about why I don’t agree with you and you with me and then you make the leap to assuming you know me and my own beliefs. I am not racist, I’m not homophobic, yet because I disagree with your stance, you make that assumption. Hard to have an good conversation when someone resorts to name calling. Take care my friend. I hope one day you have the situation arise where you have a chance to believe in Jesus. I’d love to see you in Heaven – and I mean that. Signing off.

          • glenbo

            >”you make the leap to assuming you know me and my own
            beliefs.””because I disagree with your stance, you make that
            assumption.”
            ”someone resorts to name calling.”<

            I did? How so?

            You made a claim but refused to substantiate it.
            I will ask my question once more:
            Can you give me an example of any Christian business owner
            that was “forced” to accommodate a homosexual against
            his/her will?

            Like I already said above:
            “I cannot continue to engage you in this debate if you
            refuse to answer this question. Your credibility hinges on doing so.”

            If you cannot or refuse to back up your claims, you fail at
            credibility.

          • BooBooBaby

            You’re the only one that Failed! That person said they were signing OFF…..yet YOU wrote BACK, and then YOU try to put some BS sentence at the end of your reply! Hahaha! So typical!

            Bye-bye Felicia!

          • DT

            >>“False. LGBT people don’t give a crap what imaginary myth you “believe” in. They only care about how you treat them. Treat them bad, you will be held accountable for your bad behavior.”<<

            This is true. Most of my biblical knowledge stems from so-called-christians shouting out to mankind what sinners they are. I had to research the bible to determine what a POS book it really is.

            I have never sinned in my life. Can YOU (reader, not Glenbo) say that?

            First thing you need to do is understand the word SIN. Do you KNOW what it means? A sin is an offence against god. Well, until you prove that god exist, you can’t say sin exist. O:-)

            And guess what!?! You can’t use the bible to prove that god exist because the bible is the claim. Too many simpletons (Proverbs 14:15) attempt to use the claim to support the claim. That’s no different than me claiming there is a tiny unicorn living in your anus and as proof, I show you that it is written down.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/df76d9eac35746a01babc184a093670233d686001d3908e6c38966ae1f9ce1aa.jpg

          • BooBooBaby

            Your Opinion and other BS that you Spew is MUTE too!
            You can say that GOD doesn’t exist ALL you want! But that proves that YOU are a biased/bigot…..and YOU are only in this comments thread because YOU are a biased/bigot against Christians and GOD! So your BS opinions mean Nothing!

          • DT

            You claim my opinion means nothing, but it meant enough to get a babbling response from you.

            Like most so-called-Christians, you appear to lack the use of a good dictionary. In this case, a dictionary of American idioms. Check “mute” and “moot.”

            The B.S. I “spew” is known as Biblical Swill.

            Knowledge of mythology does not make one biased. That nonessential statement of yours is no different than me saying your lack of belief in invisible pink unicorns is proof you’re a biased fool.

            I am on this comment thread to challenge the hate from the believers of mythology … you know, because the mythological god mysteriously sent me here to send you a message.

            Bless your little heart.

          • glenbo

            >”you appear to lack the use of a good dictionary””I am on this comment thread to challenge the hate from the believers of mythology”<

            I am here to defend the rights and lives of the millions of LGBT people the church needlessly, unfairly and unjustly persecutes for no good reason. I am also here to exercise my free speech rights.

            These bigoted so-called phony "Christians" don't even know why they hate LGBT people. They are simple brainwashed into doing so.

            Note to all Christians: I am not saying that ALL Christians are intolerant hateful bigot. Most of the Christians I know aren't. I am only saying that most intolerant hateful bigots are almost always Christian.

          • DT

            Does being indoctrinated to hate LGBT matter if the outcome is hate? Never in my life have I seen so much propaganda calling a thing loving, when it is, in fact, hateful.

            I AM saying ALL so-called-christians are intolerant hateful bigots for the sheer reason of claiming to support a book of hate. By support, I mean they: claim to follow the teachings; attended book studies to discuss the book (called church); donate ten percent of their income.

            This claim of an ideology is no different than a KKK membership, except the so-called-christians don’t hide their identity. Would you say a person who follows the teachings of the KKK; attend KKK events; and make donations to the KKK are not intolerant hateful bigots?

            SUPPORTING a hate group in any manner is an act of hate. PLEASE show me different. Whatever logic anyone comes up with, we’ll apply it to both the followers of the church and the KKK.

            I am going to disagree that most intolerant hateful bigots are almost always Christian. Perhaps you mean intolerant hateful American bigots are almost always “christian.” I would say that most intolerant hateful bigots are almost always the product of an indoctrinated religion–I would not single out “christians.”

          • glenbo

            >”.” I would say that most intolerant hateful bigots are almost always the product of an indoctrinated religion–I would not single out “christians.””<

            Ah! Good point!

            I seem to remember correcting myself awhile ago:
            Most intolerant hateful bigots are usually religious.
            Thank you.

          • BooBooBaby

            You’re the intolerant one that is Screaming the loudest…..not that other person you’re replying to.

            Plus you keep going on and on about “nonexistent God” and what Not! That makes everything you say and think nothing but biased/bigoted BS!

          • glenbo

            >”You’re the intolerant one that is Screaming the loudest””Plus you keep going on and on about “nonexistent
            God”<

            Because that is how I see God. Or to be more accurate, that is how God presents himself. It isn't my fault. It is God's fault I see him this way.
            You left out imaginary.
            How is God not those?
            If you cannot demonstrate that God is real and indeed exists,
            where then does god exist?

          • DT

            “Christians are accepting of everyone.”

            What does that even mean? You mean like the so-called-christians* in the photo?

            *their use of the word “sin” and “christ” informs me they pretend to be christian.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d44b98dc42d39574bf427cbacb3cbf198175fdaaeeecca30c93318be1e4bedd8.jpg

          • Guest4ever

            Christians are accepting of people. Christians, like Christ Himself, are NOT accepting of sin, ANY sin. Christ did say, “Go, and sin no more!” HELLO!!!

          • DT

            “Christians” are accepting of the sin of bacon and pork; of adultery; of astrology; of debt; of fornication; of pride …

            Why single out homosexuality for creating laws and protest signs? Why is it not enough to just follow your mythological god’s laws for yourself and leave others to their own beliefs as long as they are not coercing you?

            Christ did say, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” HELLO!!!

          • Guest4ever

            Bacon and pork are food; not sin. Adultery is usually not advertised. And most Christians do not accept those sins, as you suggest. Good bye!

          • DT

            Bacon and pork are an abomination unto the lord, known as swine. It’s amazing how many so-called-christians there are that don’t know the bible. You might want to read the book you claim you believe in. Of course, if you read and understand it all, you won’t be called a “christian” but an atheist. Only a simpleton reads the entire bible and stays a follower of the mythological god of Abraham.

            “And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.” –Leviticus 11:7-8

            I have to assume that so-called-christians don’t like sin so they picket sin. They picket homosexuals. Since they don’t picket any of the other sins listed, then they must be accepting of them. Kinda hypocritical to picket the sin you don’t commit and remain silent on the sins you do commit.

            Adultery is “advertised” in the manner of a second marriage. If you read the bible, you’d understand a second marriage is adultery according to the bible. No point in arguing with me on that point–take it up with god. So why have I never seen a picket outside a church in which the bride, groom, or both, are on their second, adulterous, marriage?

          • glenbo

            >”Christians are accepting of people.”<
            Did you or would you vote in favor of allowing gay couples the right to marry?
            Do you support non-discrimination laws…such as ENDA?

          • Guest4ever

            No. They are being given an unconstitutional choice: 1) do what we tell you, even if it goes against your conscience or 2) go out of business.

          • glenbo

            >”They are being given an unconstitutional choice: 1) do what we tell you, even if it goes against your conscience or 2) go out of business.”<
            Incorrect.
            The choices are:
            1) obey the law or face fines.
            2) Change the nature of your business to avoid disrupting your fragile "conscience."
            In other words, sell the "sinful" people the product, or simply don't offer a product that attracts "sinful" people to your place of business.
            If one hates gay people so much, or specifically gays being allowed to marry each other, one is free to stop doing weddings. Problem solved.
            You don't get to re-write or disobey anti-discrimination law because your faith is corrupt.
            I would like to ask you a question…futile as this might be:
            If a Christian wedding cake maker sold a wedding cake to a gay couple, what harm would befall the cake maker?

          • Guest4ever

            They are being FORCED to go against their conscience. Do some research into Nazi Germany. See how that sort of coercion worked!

          • glenbo

            >”They are being FORCED to go against their conscience”<
            What have they been "forced" to do?

        • glenbo

          >”these ladies can legally refuse a Caucasian couple
          their services. Are you are OK with that?””What I am saying is that when a government – begins to force people and businesses to perform”<

          Name one business that has been “forced” to perform.

          Everyone has choices. If being nice to gay people disturbs one’s inner peace so badly, (for some strange reason) one is free to change occupations or to simply stop doing weddings. Problem solved. Making blanket laws that marginalize an entire demographic social group or creating specialized entitlements for the sole purpose to skirt around anti-discrimination laws to hypocritically practice bigotry and discrimination is the immoral answer. The moral solution is to discontinue a business practice that somehow threatens your “relationship” with your non-existent imaginary friend.

          I say hypocritically because all so-called “Christian” business owners always provide service to adulterers in violation of the 7th commandment. Why is that?

          • BooBooBaby

            It is so obvious that you cannot have a Normal Conversation about this because YOU are biased/bigoted against Christians anyhow!
            You’re so bigoted that you called GOD an “imaginary friend!”

            All that other nonsense you mentioned is mute! And YOU know why too!

          • glenbo

            >”YOU are biased/bigoted against Christians anyhow!”<

            Au contraire. It’s not Christians I have a problem with. It
            is bigots.
            I work for several Christian clients and I do work for a
            church. It is disingenuous to presume I have a problem with Christians when
            that is not true. It is bigotry that I despise.

            But why are the worst anti-gay bigots always Christian?

            You're so bigoted that you called GOD an "imaginary
            friend!"”All that other nonsense you mentioned is mute!”<

            If you can prove anything I said was untrue, I will apologize.

          • Guest4ever

            How would you, or anyone else, know that they are adulterers?

          • glenbo

            >”How would you, or anyone else, know that they are adulterers?”<
            Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes AGREED to cater to a wedding for a straight couple he KNEW were both previously divorced…twice each as well as fornicated by having a child out of wedlock. The "theme" for their wedding cake was "third time's the charm."
            This is proof his "faith" is phony.

          • KR Rayberry

            I’m ok with that. I figure the free market will figure it out.

          • glenbo

            >”I’m ok with that. I figure the free market will figure
            it out.”<

            Really? You’re okay with a heterosexual person being fired,
            evicted or denied service because they are heterosexual?
            I don’t believe you. You say this only to justify bigotry
            against gay people.
            You would be whistling a different tune if this happened to
            you or someone you love.

      • ,|,,

        No moron, throwing the constitution away is when you allow your commie government to FORCE you to do something against your own beliefs, such as religious beliefs, that are PROTECTED by the constitution. Also, “protected classes” are unconstitutional, as they give a class of people rights that no other class has. We are a constitutional republic, where the law applies fair and equally to all. Take you big government knows best BS and move to N. Korea, where they already HAVE a government that is run by your rules.

        • Jimmy King

          You don’t understand constitutional jurisprudence. It’s obvious from your post. If you had a basic understanding of constitutional law, you’d realize how stupid you sound

          • KR Rayberry

            OK Jimmy, I guess I will bite. How does “constitutional jurisprudence” come into play?

          • butchz

            You don’t even know what the Constitution stands for. 1% does not a Constitution make! STUPID!

          • Guest4ever

            Boy, that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Check the mirror. Religious freedom is protected in the US Constitution. Sodomy is NOT!

          • glenbo

            >”Sodomy is NOT!”<
            Neither is driving a car, but nobody is saying you aren't allowed to drive a car based on nothing but a "belief" in a non-existent imaginary invisible magician.

      • Chondra

        LGBT madness is insisting Christians participate in their lifestyle or face punishment. How is that constitutional?

        • DT

          Chondra,

          Are you telling me there is some kind of a law that insist you must engage in a sexual relationship with someone of your own sex, against your will?

          Sorry, but you’re going to have to source that nonsense.

          • glenbo

            >”Sorry, but you’re going to have to source that nonsense.”<
            Good comeback.
            If one uses electricity on the Sabbath, is one "participating" in Sabbath Day sin? Yes.
            Jack Phillips of Masterpiece cakes (another anti-gay bigot) agreed to make a wedding cake for a straight couple that he knew had both been divorced. Therefore, Jack Phillips agreed to "participate" in an adulterous lifestyle.
            Now where have we heard about adultery before? Hmm…oh, yes…the 7 commandment.
            This proves "Christian" business owners are not concerned about being biblical.

          • butchz

            GOD never calles divorce a abomination either.

          • glenbo

            >”GOD never calles divorce a abomination either.”<

            True. He calls it sexual immorality.
            Hebrews 13:4

            But I wonder what the definition of “abomination” is?
            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abomination

            And can we compare that to the definition of moral?
            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

            You seem more concerned as to what two consenting adults do
            with their genitalia in the privacy of their homes than with the devastating
            harm incurred to children when a home is broken by their divorcing parents.

            How enlightening.

          • butchz

            If I had to pick my son being divorced or gay I would pick divorced. You seem more concerned what 2 consenting adults do in or out of the bedroom huh glenbo. How enlightening.

          • glenbo

            >”If I had to pick my son being divorced or gay I would pick divorced.””You seem more concerned what 2 consenting adults do in or out of the bedroom huh Glenbo”<

            Incorrect. I are not what anyone does in the privacy of their home just as I care not which god you chose to believe in out of thousands. I am ONLY concerned as to why (some) Christians relentlessly persecute the LGBT population when they have harmed no-one based ONLY upon what they do in their bedrooms. Creepy.

            Your sarcastic response echoes the child in the playground shouting "I know you are but what am I."

          • butchz

            You are as cracked as a egg. I don’t hate anybody. Don’t know of 1 sin that doesn’t affect ALL GOD’S children.

          • KR Rayberry

            How do you know what the basis of their divorce was? You reference the Bible quite frequently, it gives some examples of why divorce would be valid. Most churches adhere to that same principal. You are making a judgement of two divorced people that may be completely validated. Maybe you should stop judging people.

          • glenbo

            >”How do you know what the basis of their divorce was?””Maybe you should stop judging people.”<

            It is the so-called anti-gay "Christian" wedding caterers who are doing the judging. Way to attempt to twist the truth. You loose credibility with this remark.
            I only "judge" those who abuse their religion in order to harm others.

          • kainosktisis

            I think she means giving approval of said action by either active or passive participation.

          • DT

            I think I asked Chondra the question in an effort to get her to THINK and to form a more perfect union of words to form a comprehensible sentence that is not left to doubt of its intent.

          • kainosktisis

            Fair enough, although I suspect you already knew this & are using the opportunity to play the superiority card.

          • DT

            You suspected that I already knew what I was thinking?

            You’re amazing. 😀

      • Mark Schmidt

        Help me understand your argument. Why is it that “The Boss” and other musicians can tell Donald Trump he can’t use their music and clothes designers can tell Donald Trump that they won’t design clothes for his wife, yet this lady should be forced to go against her 1st Amendment protected beliefs? Are the protections only for certain people?

        • glenbo

          >”Again, help me understand your argument. Why is it that
          “The Boss” and other musicians can tell Donald Trump he can’t use
          their music and clothes designers can tell Donald Trump that they won’t design clothes for his wife”>”it allows regulation of speech only if there are
          objective indications of harm, such as threats, fraud or violence.”<”yet this lady should be forced to go against her 1st
          Amendment protected beliefs?”” Are the protections only for certain people?”<

          Yes. What’s the problem?

          The reason is simple. Certain people have been traditionally
          persecuted for no reason. The protections end this needless, unfair and unjust persecution.

          • KR Rayberry

            No court has made a judgement on Trumps language at any time. Because some seem to “be offended” at something someone say’s doesn’t mean what the person said was offensive.

            I am not going to get into a big thing with your “phony Christian” comment, but these ‘Christian’ women are indeed being forced to do something or they will loose their livelihood so this is very much a conflict. They have to choose between their God, and a man-made law. I think about things like the Catholic Germans that hid the Jews during WW2, what if they would have gone against what their Religion told them?

          • glenbo

            >” Because some seem to “be offended” at
            something someone say’s doesn’t mean what the person said was offensive.”” but these ‘Christian’ women are indeed being forced to
            do something”” or they will loose their livelihood”” I am not going to get into a big thing with your
            “phony Christian” comment”>“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another
            commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits
            adultery.”<” They have to choose between their God, and a man-made
            law.”>”Selling cakes is not religious conduct.”<<

            You as well as all of them are making up imaginary nonsense
            for the sole purpose of practicing bigotry.

          • butchz

            BE STILL and know I AM GOD!

          • glenbo

            >”BE STILL and know I AM GOD!”<
            And I approve slavery, rape and I order the murder of children!
            Have you actually read your bible? You know, the parts your pastor/priest skips over?

          • Guest4ever

            Maybe pastors skip over parts of the Bible. The ENTIRE Catholic Church reads the ENTIRE Bible in three years, every Sunday!!! Oh, and by the way, Catholics wrote the Bible!

          • glenbo

            >”Catholics wrote the Bible!”<

            Are you Catholic? And if so, do you approve slavery, rape and I order the murder of children?

          • KR Rayberry

            Glen, you are simply in a rage. Go out and throw a snowball at a squirrel or something. If no snow where you live, pick a flower and smell it. Life is not all that bad.

          • butchz

            Sure you have.

          • glenbo

            >”Sure you have.”<
            So your answer is no? You have not read your bible? I thought so.

          • KR Rayberry

            Glen, I would love to go through you gigantic rant, but I simply do not have time. I will pray for you just like I pray for Trump, and these two women in the article.

          • glenbo

            >”Glen, you are simply in a rage.””Glen, I would love to go through you gigantic rant””I will pray for you just like I pray for Trump, and
            these two women”<

            Oh, please don’t waste your prayers on me. If I believed God
            was real, I would pray for the 20,000 infants and children that God allows to
            die every day.

            http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_materials/fs/fs_mdg4_childmortality/en/
            http://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/neonatal_infant_text/en/
            https://www.unicef.org/search/search.php?q=child+mortality&Go.x=0&Go.y=0
            https://www.unicef.org/search/search.php?querystring_en=infant+mortality&hits=&type=&navigation=&Go.x=0&Go.y=0

            But it is so much easier to ignore the failings of God and instead be obsessed with sex instead now,
            isn’t it.

          • BooBooBaby

            BAM! EXACTLY!
            You Nailed it! Spot on!
            ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
            🙂

          • Guest4ever

            Um. No. Your, “thoughts” are offensive.

          • glenbo

            >” Your, “thoughts” are offensive.”<
            ??
            Cue cuckoo clock sound byte now.

        • Jimmy King

          Protections face a balancing test. She doesn’t have a 1st amendment right to discriminate

          • KR Rayberry

            The other part of your balance is can the consumer get a similar service somewhere else? As with this person, or the baker, or photographer, clearly there are other options for them.

          • Guest4ever

            Minor detail. Just some can’t see it!

          • Guest4ever

            Duh! The others are going against THEIR 1st Amendment rights, and are discriminating against this small business, founded and run by Christian women.

        • Jimmy King

          You’re confusing copyright laws with equal protection analysis Its a dumb question

          • Mark Schmidt

            As a professional musician I’m definitely NOT confusing copyright laws with rights of individuals. A song is a product that is put out in the marketplace just like anything else that is for sale by a business. I use Donald Trump as my example since he is the most recent example of bigotry against someone that you and “The Boss” don’t agree with. As long as Trump pays the rights management fees (ASCAP, BMI, etc.), he has the right to play the song just like anyone else. To claim he doesn’t have the right is complete discrimination – exactly what you are claiming with the business in this article.

    • glenbo

      >”huge corporations and a government against a couple of people who have convictions based on faith”<
      Now they know how LGBT people have felt for centuries.

      • Mark Christopher Querry

        I love this site, it lets me know which are the best places to shop like target but not Macys. A tiny fraction of planned parenthood goes to providing abortions. The Vast majority of their services are used to serve the healthcare needs in communities that are under served: women and children that are usually shut out of regular healthcare providers due to economic standing. I guess you believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. Hey the kid was born, that’s all we care about. Screw the baby and mother for their other healthcare needs. They should fend for themselves. All you care about is a very limited ( non government funded by law) scope of practice: abortion. Ever look at the community that PP serves? Doubtful. With your narrow world view, you most likely ignore sick poor children and sick poor mothers. How very unchristian of you.

        But as I said in the beginning, this site lets me know where to spend my money. So please excuse me, I have some Christmas shopping to do at Target.

        • glenbo

          >”I guess you believe life begins at conception and ends
          at birth.””But as I said in the beginning, this site lets me know
          where to spend my money.”<
          Here's a few more.

          http://americanchristians.org/ChristianBoycotts.htm

        • BooBooBaby

          And it let’s ALL the rest of us, with MONEY, know EXACTLY where to spend OUR MONEY too!
          So….go away with your biased/bigoted BS!!

          Why do you think most of us come here…..so WE know exactly where WE should SPEND OUR MONEY!!

          Bye-bye. …Felicia!!

      • BooBooBaby

        Oh okay….so you’re ALL for Revenge against people that weren’t even alive way back then!??
        SICKENING!!

        Bye-bye to you too….Felicia!

        • glenbo

          >”so you’re ALL for Revenge”<
          Cue cuckoo clock sound byte now.

  • glenbo

    If Christians can legally deny service to those who violate their consciences, will atheists be able to legally do the same to Christians?

    • WilliamtheFirst

      Considering that close to 70% of Americans identify as
      Christians, the answer is yes – unless, of course, that Christian falls
      under one or more of the government approved “protective class” categories.

      • kainosktisis

        Not according to current stats. We are into a culture of no religious preference or outright atheism now.

      • glenbo

        >”unless, of course, that Christian falls
        under one or more of the government approved “protective class” categories.”<
        So the answer is no?
        But what about my religious beliefs and conscience as an atheist?

  • MARVIN OUTRAGE

    When does the cull begin? When will the heavens cry blood and the wicked shriek and writhe as their diseased flesh is torn from their bones? When will the righteous learn that the only way out of this mess is through copious amounts of violence and bloodshed? When the endtimes? Can we not agree that the time for the world to end is nigh? Isn’t it obvious that our Lord and Savior wants us to terrorize, maim and kill those that do not belong? If not, why did He put this gun in my hand, this rope on my belt, this can of gas in my truck?

  • DT

    Arizona Calligraphy Businesswomen are NOT Under Fire For Christian Beliefs.

    People have religions. Businesses do not.

    The lawsuit is against “Brush & Nib Studio,” not any businesswomen. Please learn the difference between a person and a business.

    Businesses have different obligations than a person does.

    What the businesswomen are doing is generating publicity. There’s no such thing as bad publicity.

    • kainosktisis

      There are faith-based businesses.

      • DT

        There are faith-based businesses … that follow the same rules as any other business. A business does not get to cry “I’M RELIGIOUS” in order to justify their bigotry.

        • kainosktisis

          Bigotry is a very one-sided view of the matter though. It doesn’t take a deeper view into account by which one’s freedom of religion is threatened.

          • DT

            Bigotry is bigotry. Just because you think your god approves of your bigotry–he doesn’t according to Jesus Christ’s Golden Rule–doesn’t make it legal.

            Sadly, there is no deeper view but one should really question why they follow a bigot, and worship him.

            Personal liberties trump your religion’s bigotry every time. But maybe I think that only because I have morals.

            Remember, if the women followed the teaching’s of Christ, they would be refusing service to Christ. There’s that whole “what ye do to the least of men, also you do to me” thing. But that doesn’t fit with the religious’ bigotry.

          • kainosktisis

            What is your understanding of the Golden Rule?

            Are you Christian or an outsider to the faith?

          • DT

            That’s a big WOW to ask what is my understanding of the Golden Rule. Makes me wonder what YOUR understanding of it is.

            It’s so simple I don’t understand why you would ask such a question.

            Treat others the way you wish others would treat you. How simple is that? I think at this point it best that you tell me what you think it means.

            I was raised Christian but when I became a man, I put away childish things–like the bible says to do.

          • DT

            Since you asked, what is YOUR understanding of the Golden Rule and why did you ask the question?

          • kainosktisis

            I asked because I wanted to see what your understanding of it is as you present yourself as an atheist proposing to understand things Christian. The Golden Rule as I was brought up with it is doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Sometimes I wish there were an option to give a recorded message rather than merely written because sometimes I think people assume hostility in replies where none exists & reply hostily…

          • DT

            So we both understand the Golden Rule. It’s simple and straightforward.

            No need to believe in a mythological fictional character to understand written words.

            “I think people assume hostility in replies where none exists …” Exactly.

    • hillbilly

      tell that to HOBBY LOBBY

      • DT

        I know, right!

        The Hobby Lobby ruling is about providing health care benefits to employees, not about discrimination against consumers.

      • kainosktisis

        And the Poor Clares…

    • WilliamtheFirst

      It is quite noble of you to take time out of your day to
      school the masses on just what is happening in this world by pointing out the
      nuances of the legal system. I am sure
      you have only the best intentions in mind to ensure everyone has the proper
      education as you see it.

      You are quite correct, of course, in pointing out what is
      stated atop of the legal documents involved in this case. And you are quite correct in your assertion
      that a Business does not have a religion or any feelings whatsoever, for that
      matter.

      Ah, but here is the rub…businesses ARE people – – the ones
      who turn on the lights, who do the work, who take on the liabilities. They are not robots or words, they are people
      – and they come with all the things people bring with them, such as skills,
      attributes (genders) and ideologies. And
      these people do have feelings and (gasp) sometimes religion.

      The services provided by this business are very intimate
      from what I gather in that they hand write invitations and announcements for
      parties, meetings and marriages, among other things. It is that very intimacy that is in play here
      and these two women do not feel comfortable to the point of risking their livelihood
      to perform the presented task for a gay couple.

      I am 56 years old – the bulk of my friends are gay and I
      spent the 80’s watching people die from the aids epidemic…I also watched the
      very government that you now stand behind whole heatedly do nothing. I watched as gay people left hospitals for
      the care they so desperately needed because their partners were not “family” in
      the legal sense and were barred from being with them.

      The government and the law that you so vehemently defend
      caused the situation we are in now and you need to ask yourself the question as
      to whether this government has your best interests in mind or is it all about
      them? Left and right political ideology
      comes and goes like the wind and today’s “protected class” can very well be
      tomorrows enemy.

      I don’t agree with these two ladies because I think they are
      cutting themselves out of a very lucrative market – but I don’t begrudge them
      as they have (or should have) the same rights as anyone else.

      Just as people have the right to stand on principle and burn
      a flag, I believe these two women have the right to stand on principle and
      refuse to write invitations or whatever for a gay wedding…whether I like or
      not.

      • DT

        Ah, the nuances of understanding there’s a legal difference between a person and a business.

        A business is being sued.

        Being sued using the claim their faith doesn’t allow it. The very same faith that says not to judge someone with a splinter in their eye until you remove the log from yours. The very faith in which the character of whom the faith was named taught the Golden Rule.

        The women seem to lack knowledge of the faith that wish to be faithful to. If god were real, their intentions would indeed be paving a road to hell for them.

        • kainosktisis
          • DT

            Bigotry is the way a person thinks. Think whatever you wish. But once your thoughts inform you to treat someone different based on their natural trait, and not any action toward you, that is a bigotry that crosses over into actions against a person. Perhaps discrimination is a better word to define the actions of the bigots.

            Do you lack the knowledge to speak and you need links to speak for you? For the record, I’m not debating links and I won’t respond to any more of them but feel free to source your work.

          • kainosktisis

            Thing is that I don’t believe it to be inborn. And people like Dr. Rosaria Buttercup, Camille Paglia, & Dr. Lisa Diamond also affirm this conclusion.

          • DT

            I said “natural trait,” not “inborn.” There’s a difference.

            What you believe and what are facts are two different things. So what does your scientific research tell you is the factor determining homosexuality?

            There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.

            Once again I’ll state that once your thoughts inform you to TREAT someone different based on their natural trait, and not any action toward you, that is a discrimination caused by bigotry.

          • kainosktisis

            Like you treat me.

          • DT

            What does your scientific research tell you is the factor determining homosexuality? I notice you don’t address some of my comments. I hate to address this as you may be responding to another comment at this very moment. B-)

            I treat you with bluntness. Just like I treat everyone else.

            How is that discrimination?

            Oh wait, you’re probably one of those so-called-Christians who read the part in the bible about how you’ll be persecuted, so you like to imagine you’re being persecuted despite the fact that you don’t own a dictionary to understand what the word persecuted actually means.

          • kainosktisis

            If it were genetic, the Human Genome Project’s research should’ve found the gene in question. As far as I’ve seen, none turned up. so to me, there is no gene. Could it possibly be a gene that controls some aspect of the endocrine system or the brain? Possible.

            Honestly who knows for sure? I don’t. I’d venture to say that perhaps hormones, environment, some sort of trauma (Everybody’s different). But as biologically we have XX or XY – that’s it (I don’t buy the numerous gender identity theories: for me, you’re a guy or a girl. What attracts you to one person vs another may vary though). Barring some sort of mutation. Dr. Diamond seems to say there’s behavioral fluidity. Possible. There’s also been research done up around the Great Lakes showing that fish populations have been affected (possibly delaying reproduction of certain species within 3 generations) due to the chemical effects of drugs we inadvertently put in our water systems because we have no way of filtering them out. The main culprits seem to be birth control pills. That could possibly be a factor, but as historically homosexuality has been around a long time, it’s not the only possibility.

          • DT

            Yes, that’s it. You don’t know for sure one way or the other.
            You can’t deny it’s natural. You’ve never met a homosexual man who claimed he was sexually only attracted to women but yet he wanted to be, and engaged in, a homosexual lifestyle.
            It doesn’t work like that.
            Homosexuality is just as natural as the foods you like. It may not be the same for everyone, but everyone has a preference to what they find sexuality attrractive just as they have a preference to what foods they find appealing.
            My point being that one’s choice of food or choice of life partner should have nothing to do with how they are treated.

          • kainosktisis

            Well, by that same logic, lying, theft, mistreatment of others, murder, adultery, sexual abuse of children, etc is also natural. Does that mean I should do any of them because they are so?

          • DT

            Are you equating your sexual desire to being the same as your desire to lie, steal, mistreat others, murder, commit adultry and sexualy abuse children?

            I’ve heard about those so-called-christians that need an imaginary god to provide them morals. You sound like one of them. WOW! YOU NEED JESUS!!!!!

            No, you should not sexualy abuse children–or anyone else–or murder anyone, but instead seek psychological help right away.

            If god were real, I would be praying real hard for you righ now. O:-)

          • kainosktisis

            A person is created in the image of God & due respect as such regardless. However, no Christian knowing the teachings handed down by Christ through His Apostles can in good conscience accept as good, valid, or act in a manner that legitimizes or accepts as normal what God has clearly taught otherwise. In that, we have to answer to Him. The marital relationship of one husband to one wife for life in a covenant bond is one ordered to God in such a way that reflects the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Anything other than that is contrary to His teaching & will.

          • DT

            People deserve to be respected. Where you think people come from is irrelevant to them deserving to be respected.

            Your imaginary god is a dick. Allegedly he creates mankind and makes some of them gay and then calls that an offense against himself. That is a dick move.

            Kinda like your mythological god made mankind too simple-minded to understand the difference between good-and-evil and made it an offence against himself for them to learn that piece of info. Dick move indeed.

            That’s gotta be really hard to follow a book of contradictions. How can you both “act in a manner that legitimizes or accepts as normal what god has clearly taught otherwise” and also follow the Golden Rule?

            Where is god’s “order” that marriage is between one husband to one wife for life? Are these so-called-christians also boycotting stores that allow divorced people to shop at their stores? –you said for life, right? Or is that okay because it does not go against your own views so you just ignore that one? Funny how that works. It’s as if the so-called-christians are bigots about which of god’s rules they’ll follow.

            IT’s a mystery or some type all right.

          • kainosktisis

            “People deserve to be respected. Where you think people come from is irrelevant to them deserving to be respected.”

            This is true. This is why I have tried to refrain from being insulting & condescending. It’s too easy to do fall into that kind of behavior online…

            “Allegedly he creates mankind and makes some of them gay and then calls that an offense against himself…”

            We both have different views on this. You assume an inborn immutable state that should be accepted – not just by the individual with the condition, but also by others – to the point of celebrating, normalizing, & actively or passively legitimizing it.

            I do not accept this assertion. I look at it from the perspective that we all have our own crosses to bear in life: some have inclinations towards stealing…or fornicating…or being adulterous…etc. I wouldn’t say we have a fixed genetic condition, but rather a sin nature passed on to us from our first parents…

            Our inclinations towards the bad may vary, but they can be overcome – in Christ. The difference is that some choose to validate the wrong & call it normal – celebrate it – & expect others to give it their stamp of approval. I choose not to. It’d be no different than for someone to celebrate any such behavior on my part.

            “god made mankind too simple-minded to understand the difference between good-and-evil and made it an offence against himself for them to learn that piece of info.”

            On the contrary – we ALL know deep inside that right & wrong. We are all capable of good & evil…but we seem to have a propensity for the wrong…It’s a never-ending struggle of choices to do right vs wrong.

            “That’s gotta be really hard to follow a book of contradictions. How can you both “act in a manner that legitimizes or accepts as normal what god has clearly taught otherwise” and also follow the Golden Rule?”

            You’d mentioned something about going to a church long ago…Were you raised Christian long ago or were you checking out a church long ago? I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from…

            Perhaps contradiction is not the right word per se…Paradox is probably better. Like, in order to gain eternal life, you have to lose your life here on earth – let His take over…Let His fill you….Finding life in giving yours away….

            Maybe because in letting go of our earthly selves (our selfishness, our fears, our desires, our pride, our anger, etc….), we let Him rule in our lives.

            “Where is god’s “order” that marriage is between one husband to one wife for life? Are these so-called-christians also boycotting stores that allow divorced people to shop at their stores? –you said for life, right? Or is that okay because it does not go against your own views so you just ignore that one? Funny how that works. It’s as if the so-called-christians are bigots about which of god’s rules they’ll follow.”

            You know what? I am praying for you. Whatever your views – wherever you’ve come from – I honestly hope that God will reveal Himself to you & that you will one day come to know Him. Somehow that bluntness you express shows that you are in fact trying to understand Him.

            The marriage for life thing is found here:

            From Genesis 2:

            21
            “So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

            22
            The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man,

            23
            the man said: ‘“This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’for out of man this one has been taken.”’

            24
            That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

            25
            The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.”

            Jesus reiterated this same thing & took it a step further:

            From Matthew 19:

            “3
            Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”

            4
            He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’

            5
            and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

            6
            So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

            7
            They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”

            8
            He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

            9
            I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

            10
            [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

            11
            He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,* but only those to whom that is granted.

            12
            Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

            From the footnotes:

            “* [19:4–6] Matthew recasts his Marcan source, omitting Jesus’ question about Moses’ command (Mk 10:3) and having him recall at once two Genesis texts that show the will and purpose of the Creator in making human beings male and female (Gn 1:27), namely, that a man may be joined to his wife in marriage in the intimacy of one flesh (Gn 2:24). What God has thus joined must not be separated by any human being. (The NAB translation of the Hebrew bāśār of Gn 2:24 as “body” rather than “flesh” obscures the reference of Matthew to that text.)

            * [19:7] See Dt 24:1–4.

            * [19:9] Moses’ concession to human sinfulness (the hardness of your hearts, Mt 19:8) is repudiated by Jesus, and the original will of the Creator is reaffirmed against that concession. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): see note on Mt 5:31–32. There is some evidence suggesting that Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce was paralleled in the Qumran community (see 11QTemple 57:17–19; CD 4:12b–5:14). Matthew removes Mark’s setting of this verse as spoken to the disciples alone “in the house” (Mk 10:10) and also his extension of the divorce prohibition to the case of a woman’s divorcing her husband (Mk 10:12), probably because in Palestine, unlike the places where Roman and Greek law prevailed, the woman was not allowed to initiate the divorce.

            * [19:11] [This] word: probably the disciples’ “it is better not to marry” (Mt 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God.

            * [19:12] Incapable of marriage: literally, “eunuchs.” Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, “have made themselves eunuchs”) for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can…ought to accept it.”

            It’s a pity you don’t live near by me. We have a Christmas event with Christmas songs & all at my church. If you were nearby, I’d invite you to come. I think it would be nice to meet you – share a cup of hot cocoa, & just talk & get to know one another. 🙂

          • DT

            Homosexuality is normal just as hetrosexuality is. It should be accepted just as hetrosexuality is, and all that comes with that, such as celebrating, normalizing and legitimizing it.

            You do not accept the assertion that homosexuality is natural because you believe a two-thousand-year old mythology to be a history book. And yet, you can’t scientifically / biologically
            / genetically explain hetrosexuality.

            You claim homosexuality is not natural, but sin is. LOL. Do you understand that sin is nothing but an offence against a mythological god? There is no god, so there is no sin. It’s that simple.

            This mythological god created mankind so simple that they did not know the difference between good and evil. I seriously think you are also so simple that you can’t fathom this point. The point that according to the myth, the god character created simpletons and provided them a way to become as knowledgeable as all the other gods. But in order for mankind to gain the knowledge of what is good and what is evil, they would have to “sin” to achieve it.

            But I’ve already made that point and you simply dismiss it.

            Genesis 2:17 But of the TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. [which is also a lie told by god.]

            Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to MAKE ONE WISE, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

            Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

            Adam and Eve did NOT possess the knowledge of good and evil UNTILAFTER they ate the fruit. That’s likes getting a house dog and saying to the dog that he may not chew shoes but “not chew shoes” isn’t in his vocabulary and when the dog chews the shoes the first time, you throw him into the yard and never allow him inside the house again. And then have the nerve to blame the dog.

            NO, mankind did NOT know deep inside what was right and what was wrong. Not until they ate the fruit. The very name of the tree should tell you that–unless you’re too simple minded to understand basic English.

            No, “Contradictions” is the correct word. Here, I’ll list just ONE and you can cry how it’s not really a contradiction, even though it is.
            There are many, many places where the bible says to kill but there’s no point in listing them all. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 says to kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night: “But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.”

            Now is there a verse that says “Thou shalt not kill.”? Ah, yes, Exodus 20:13 does.

            That is a contradiction. Just for fun, has anyone seen god? No matter which way you answer the question, I’ll prove you wrong with scripture. O:-)

            It seems you wish to “understand” where I’m coming from, so you can attack that aspect of my biblical knowledge. I think it is enough for you to know that I know the bible well enough to know it is mythology. There are many, many ways to learn this. Contradictions are one way. Both the god character and the Jesus character lying. Believers not being able to do what the bible claims believers can do. (Unless you wish to attribute that to Jesus lying again.)

            Okay, so you understand now that a marriage is between one husband and one wife for life. Your Jesus even says “I can guarantee that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than her unfaithfulness is committing adultery if he marries another woman.” –sorry, Jesus didn’t say “unless the marriage is unlawful” but said “if the wife is unfaithful.” Notice nowhere does Jesus say the man can’t be unfaithful … or does he? We’re not talking about death here, but divorce.

            Now that we have that settled, do you care to more completely address my comment of “Are these so-called-christians also boycotting stores that allow divorced people to shop at their stores? Or is that okay because it does not go against your own views so you just ignore that one? Funny how that works. It’s as if the so-called-christians are bigots about which of god’s rules they’ll follow.”

            You said “You know what? I am praying for you,” like a hypocrite. Does your prayer go unanswered unless announced on social media? Or does it just annoy Jesus? Let’s look in Matthew for the answer to this.

            In Matthew 6:5-6, Jesus is speaking and he says “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly…”

            The biblical corners-of-the-streets is today’s social media and announcing you’ll pray is nothing less than the love of being seen by men.

            Matthew 6 is a good read. Many so-called-christians should read the entire chapter and stop announcing their good deeds to the world … unless the only reason they do good deeds is for worldly recognition.

            You’re totally misunderstanding my bluntness. I am, in fact trying to get YOU to understand the mythology for what it is and if you should take one thing from the teachings of whom the religion is named, that is to treat others as you wish to be treated and leave your judgements to your mythological god.

          • kainosktisis

            Ordinary earthly f ood is not spiritual, but people are. There are spiritual realities that some things in the material realm represent.

          • DT

            Looks like you have no counterpoint so you just babble on with a nonsensical statement that has nothing to do with my comment.

          • kainosktisis

            It has everything to do with it. You just chose to dismiss it because it doesn’t give you what you want. Like Aldous Huxley stated before…

          • DT

            You were talking about genes and I said you don’t know if homosexuality is natural or not. You have no response to the physical aspect of mankind, so you jump to the mythological “spiritual realities.”

            Clearly, we were not talking about “spiritual realities” but one’s sexuality being natural.

            I choose to dismiss it because it is babbling that doesn’t address the thread of the conversation.

          • kainosktisis

            I did. I don’t believe it to be genetic at least as far as there is a specific gene for same sex attraction. But I do believe there can be other factors. As named previously…

          • DT

            Well, I guess when you get stumped, you just post BS.* Because that makes no sense–which really helps your side of the debate–to just post “magical nonsense” and think you’ve responded to a debate point.

            SMH

            *Biblical Swill

          • kainosktisis

            “You’ve never met a homosexual man who claimed he was sexually only attracted to women but yet he wanted to be, and engaged in, a homosexual lifestyle.”

            I think you’re making an assumption about me on that.

            “You can’t deny it’s natural.”

            There are many things that are natural….such as eating…defecating….urinating…Mushrooms are natural, too…along with toadstools…Just because something’s natural doesn’t necessarily make it good or healthy…In fact some things in nature are deadly…

          • DT

            Seriously?

            So have you ever met man who was only sexually attracted to women but yet he wanted to be, and engaged in, a homosexual lifestyle?

            Is that person YOU?

            Let me see if I can recall our conversations. You (and I could be easily mistaken on this as I am engaging in dialog with many bigots-for-Christ) first claim that there is no gay gene so you imply it is not natural and I ask you what makes a person hetrosexual and you have no idea. I then say a person should not be treated differently because of a natural trait and you lack the ability to dispute that sexuality is natural, so you then say “Just because something’s natural doesn’t necessarily make it good or healthy”

            Cute. And asinine.

            You see, the subject was that people should be treated with respect and you are doing your best to explain why some people should be discriminated against. But you can’t come up with anything.

            The hilarious aspect of this is that YOU are the one who seems to be claiming that you have some sort of religion that is your moral guide but you keep making immoral comments about how your god wants you to judge others.

            Why don’t you just make this world a better place for everyone that you can and leave the judging to the non-existent god?

          • kainosktisis

            Regarding the bluntness, I do not observe the same level of bluntness towards others as shown towards me.

          • DT

            Could be that your claims are more outrageous than some of the others here.

          • kainosktisis

            I do own a dictionary: you just don’t care for the older definitions it carries, & I don’t particularly care for some of the newer ones. 🙂 In all fairness, it is dated, but I figure the internet has the newer definitions. No sense in buying another expensive dictionary when the internet has the newer ones for free.

            I am a Christian – Catholic. A recent convert. Persecuted? Possibly. But I find it very telling. If I follow my faith, people who define love as merely emotion criticize & call me names (& it wouldn’t be the first time. I have a sibling who’d come out, yet I think despite some of his previous criticisms, has concluded that I DO in fact care deeply for him & would protect him from offenders). We do not agree on some things, but he does know I love him (Live as agape in nature). If I don’t & I am nothing more than a cultural Christian who follows along with current, I will either be praised as “loving” by a cultural definition or hailed as a hypocrite for not following the teachings.

          • DT

            And I repeat, what does your scientific research tell you is the factor determining homosexuality? I notice (AGAIN) you don’t address some of my comments.

            What is your “old” dictionary definition of persecution?

            It matters not what you care for when the English language is the subject. It is what it is and words evolve, much like mankind has. (I don’t mean you must have a physical book for your dictionary, I just mean to actually use a dictionary to understand the contemporary meaning of words you use.)

            If you follow your faith, then you stone homosexuals and disobedient children. Nothing loving in that.

            Caring deeply for one human being has little to do with one’s own views.

            If you DO follow the teachings of your faith, then you are evil. (See the stoning above.) And you are right, since you seem to be saying you have a homosexual brother and you have not stoned him to death, then you are indeed a worthless follower of the god of Abraham. (Worthless to god, not to mankind.) And yes, a hypocrite.

            You know what’s hilarious? The Men’s Pancake Breakfast at a baptist church where they serve bacon with the pancakes. Not sure if they still have a Men’s Pancake Breakfast, but they did when I was a child and for some odd reason, it was just a pancake breakfast–with bacon–for men. One Sunday a year, held before service. Preach damnation to homosexuals while consuming the most delicious abomination known to the lord. LOL.

            You also implied I discriminated against you, but didn’t address when I corrected you on that falsehood.

            EDIT: CORRECTION: I see you have posted many, many snippets instead of just creating one response. You may have indeed addressed some of these items I claim you have not addressed. But apparently Satan was your English teacher. O:-)

          • kainosktisis

            I’m not Jewish: I’m Christian. The Council of Jerusalem (See Acts 15) addressed the whole dietary thing. There are caregivers from the OT to the NT, so no stoning – but they are still wrong. I grew up Baptist, & I had my own share of stuff as you’d mentioned. My Baptist brethren are good at knowing the Word – sometimes lacking in the application of charity towards others though. So we do have that in common…

          • DT

            You’re not Jewish: but Christian?

            I’m sorry, but how does that change the words of the bible? I mean, if the Jews understand the bible to mean one thing, how come the Christians understand it to mean something else?

            WHO (or what) gave “mankind” the rule of not eating bacon?

            Who were those who composed The Council of Jerusalem?

            Please explain what you mean by “caregivers from the OT to the NT,” as that is a new one for me.

          • kainosktisis

            Ok, it’s a given I’m not the best at articulating my thoughts into words, but I’ll do my best with my limited ability that way…I don’t have the whole original post up so as to reference what I’d previously written so please bear with me. And if I don’t address something you feel needs addressing, I’m not doing it intentionally to avoid answering you. 🙂

            “how does that change the words of the bible?”

            It’s said that the New [Covenant] is concealed in the Old, & the Old [Covenant] is revealed in the New Covenant. [Scott Hahn is big on talking about the significance of covenants in the Bible].

            I try to look at it from this perspective: prophecies were made about a Messiah Who would come to fulfill the promises made by God through His prophets that He would be with men: He would literally enter into mankind (It’s a long list, but if you wish, I’ll try find a copy online of all of the prophecies – or at least as many of them as I can find – that speak of the coming of the Messiah). Christians believe that Jesus (called Yeshua HaMaschiah in Hebrew) is that Messiah – prophetically referred to as Immanuel/Emmanuel (variant spelling for “God with us”).

            The timer’s going off to remind me I need to head off to take care of something. When I get back, I’ll try to work more on this…

          • DT

            It’s real simple: WHO (or what) gave “mankind” the rule of not eating bacon?

            Who were those who composed The Council of Jerusalem?

            Please explain what you mean by “caregivers from the OT to the NT,” as that is a new one for me.

          • kainosktisis

            Sorry for my delay in answering. Christmas gets to be a very busy time here at home. Hope your holiday was merry & blessed (if you celebrate).

            The Scriptural account of the Council of Jerusalem can be found in Acts 15:1-35 NAB:

            http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/15

            There is an article in the Catholic Forum that deals with observance of Kosher laws by Christians:

            http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/can-catholics-honor-jewish-customs

            Let’s just say that, for me, observance of Kashrut Laws is optional not obligatory. Ultimately the understanding I have is that the New Covenant’s aim is to bring us back to Eden. We started off in Eden long ago in Genesis, & in the end, in Revelation, we go back there – as beings reconciled to God – sin removed – immortal – incorruptible – made holy in Him.

            For the reference about caretakers, I’ll have to refer back to my original post to answer.

          • DT

            kainosktisis,

            Your answers are becoming so pathetic that it’s not even funny anymore.

            I asked you who were those who composed The Council of Jerusalem, and you send me a link? Seriously? if you yourself don’t know, why are you even here pretending to debate?

            I’m not interested in googling the internet to debate myself.

            So even though you don’t seem to know who this council is, is it safe to say it’s a group of men? Exactly how many men need to get together to overturn “god’s law”?

            Seriously, what is the minimum amount of men required? Because I’m about to have a meeting with some atheist and we’ll call ourselves the Council of America and we’ll overturn every one of “god’s laws,” since you are saying god is helpless from preventing man changing his laws.

            And now god’s laws are optional not obligatory.

            “For the reference about caretakers, I’ll have to refer back to my original post to answer.” Funny how you seem to know less and less with each comment. Seriously, if you don’t know that of which you speak, why are you pretending here?

            Don’t forget, you seem to follow a religion in which the character of which the religion is named said he did not come to change one iota of the law and then the followers of said man, change all the laws that they aren’t prejudiced against.

            Hypocritical and contradictory.

          • DT
          • DT

            You didn’t address the question you highlighted of “How does that change the words of the bible?” Much less the other questions. And your answer seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

        • kainosktisis

          Since you render God as unreal, do you identify as an atheist then? Why must Christians keep their faith views private while atheist views are to inform public policy? This is clearly a double standard. Both are religious views…

          • DT

            DT–Doubting Thomas.

            Provide me what the Biblical Doubting Thomas received and I too may believe. But not before that time. You do know what he received … right?

            Yes, DT is an atheist.

            Faith views vs public policy. Apples and Oranges. I don’t allow my faith to rule public policy. But it’s pretty asinine when you ask a protester why they feel homosexuals should not be together and their response is “my god.”

            This is clearly NOT a double standard. Only one is a religious view.

            Perhaps you require the use of a good dictionary. But I can almost guarantee you’l refuse to look up words you incorrectly think you know. So here it is:

            ‘religious’ is relating to or believing in a religion, which is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods. Since Atheist lack a belief in a god, they are not religious.

            My views on how one is to treat homosexuals–or anyone else–are not based on religion.

          • kainosktisis

            But atheism is its own form of religion. And it’s becoming more organized with time – even where atheists want their own chaplains in the military as well as creating atheist churches…

          • DT

            Okay, so now when you don’t get a full reply from me, blame it on your incorrect usage of the ellipse. Many websites use that as a preview of the article and it indicates there is more to read. Not so with you so I have to assume you typed no more and won’t open the email link in 2nd Vote again.

            Atheism is NOT its own form of religion.

            Groups for secular humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, atheists and agnostics who want a sense of community, can meet without having a god. Having a meeting on a Sunday does not make you or your meeting religious.

            The military chaplain is a constitutional rights and denial of religious freedom rights being equal to all, no matter what their belief. It’s not about a god.

            What part of “belief in a god” are you not understanding?

          • kainosktisis

            I think you assume that when I say a god I mean a supernatural being, & I believe that in the absence of the supernatural, man needs to fill that void with something – himself. Man becomes his own deity.

          • DT

            Yes, it is correct that when you use a word, that I assume you understand the meaning of that word and are using it correctly. That’s what language is all about.

            I realize so-called-christians have their own secret dictionary, with many hidden meanings–of common words–to the general public. The most common misuses of words by so-called-christians are “love” and “religious.”

            But let’s look at how the dictionary defines god:

            God
            ɡäd/
            noun
            1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
            synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
            2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
            “a moon god”
            synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
            “sacrifices to appease the gods”

            exclamation
            1. used for emphasis or to express emotions such as surprise, anger, or distress.
            “God, what did I do to deserve this?”

          • kainosktisis

            Atheism is nothing more than the self-deification of man. Humankind has a need to fill a void when there is no formal deity outside oneself, & in the absence of a supernatural being to fill the void, man steps up to plate…

          • DT

            Why do you end your ramblings with an ellipsis?

            An ellipsis at the end of a sentence implies that the writer has trailed off. But why have you trailed off? Are you suggesting something? Does it represent a nudge or a wink?
            Those three little dots suggest something is going on, but give the reader no clue about what it might be. This can make otherwise straightforward sentences confusing, which you seem to be good at.

            I get the impression you want to say more but lack the knowledge to do so.

            Now where were we? Oh yeah, your completely made up definition of a word.

            Atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

            That’s it.

            The one’s with a need to fill a void are called religious, often creating supernatural beings to worship and justify their bigotry. Bigotry rather than love of their fellow man.

          • kainosktisis

            Your atheism informs your worldview.

          • DT

            Sorry, I didn’t realized you didn’t address the entire comment in one comment but chose to randomly address the points. Is’t that a tactic used to attempt to later claim the person you are debating did not address your point?

            It’s more like my worldview informs my atheism. But thank you Captain Obvious for stating that a person’s personal experiences informs their worldview.

          • kainosktisis

            Martin Luther King Jr as well as Mahatma Ghandi’s faiths informed their world views, thereby leading them to pursue equality for their people. Would you also discount their views because they were religious in nature..?

          • DT

            No.

            But the mythological god they think is real did nothing to help them and their movements.

            You failed to acknowledge that atheism is not a religion. Feel free to consult your own dictionary and get back to me on that one.

        • kainosktisis

          Back in the day when AIDS was emerging, the local gay community in SF fought to keep their bath houses open, thereby choosing sex over life against the authorities. There was a building in the old Presidio of SF that was supposed to become an AIDS research hospital; the local residents voted it down as they feared it would affect their property values…

          • DT

            Revelance?

          • kainosktisis

            You say that the government was inactive in helping. I say that efforts were made, but that the gay community sabotaged those efforts in favor of its own pursuits. It was a deadly choice. And even locals sabotaged those efforts .

          • DT

            kainosktisis,

            I’m sorry, but if a person claims something has happened, then it is up to that person to prove the claim. It would be kind of hard to prove a “negative,” such as “the US Government was highly inactive in helping with early onset of GRID, which is known today as AIDS.”

            Please source your claim that the Government “helped.”

            AIDS became known to man in the late 70s / early 80s. Who was US president in office in the early 80s? Would you not agree that AIDS was a major health crisis in America? Please tell me what the President of the United States (any US President serving in the 80s) had to say about AIDS during that time.

            I understand that you’re saying that the cause of the problem was not being corrected on a personal level, so individuals sabotaged any real effort to correct a national problem? Kind of like driving a car emits gases harmful to the environment–as it pertains to humans–and the government’s attempt to control the gasses are in vain because individuals still engage in the activity of driving cars. So the government is held blameless?

            Interesting.

            Who wanted to create this alleged AIDS hospital? Why did the entity you claim who wanted to build this hospital not find another piece of property?

            That’s like saying criminials run rampant in America because one communtiy in America does not want a prison built in their neighborhood.

          • DT

            Can you address the comment point-by-point, that I made yesterday, on this comment of yours?

      • glenbo

        >”I believe these two women have the right to stand on principle and
        refuse to write invitations or whatever for a gay wedding”<

        Exactly what is this principle?

  • Chief Mojo

    I must’ve missed the era when everyone in the country was forcing the LGBTGVXYZ community to adore, worship and approve of their various Christian-based lifestyles or risk being driven out of business with their willing accomplices of like-minded, government jack-booted brown shirts. As always, those who espouse “tolerance” are the ones that have zero tolerance for anyone who isn’t goose-stepping down the parade route with them. Welcome to the new, Rainbow-cloaked Orwellian regime. Enjoy!

    • Mark Christopher Querry

      Welcome to an era where bigotry, homophobia will not be tolerated in places of public accommodation. Religious organisations are well protected by the first amendment and can not be forced to go against their beliefs; i.e. Two Catholics can not force a rabbi to marry them any more than any religious leader can be forced to marry a same gender couple. However, if you open a business that serves the public your business does not fall under that shield. You can not deny service to a mixed race couple even if you hold the antiquated view ( which many had and quoted scripture to defend their views) you shouldn’t have to provide them the same access to your business as a non-mixed race couple.

      • glenbo

        >”Welcome to an era where bigotry, homophobia will not be
        tolerated in places of public accommodation.”<

        Well said.

        The encouragement of the evangelical population to vote for
        the most disgusting and morally deficient candidate in U.S. history was done for only one reason as most evangelicals detest Thump: To reverse pro-LGBT protections, reverse Roe v. Wade and create “religious liberty” legislation that accomplishes ONLY one thing…punish LGBT people via bigotry and discrimination… something the church has always encouraged. There is NO benefit to the evangelicals by voting for Thump as there was never any “threat” or danger to begin with. The evangelicals have been duped with lies, un- substantiated fear, false information and fake “news” stories that ALL hypocritically bear false witness to thy neighbors.

        The church and all its followers cannot come up with a
        single rational reason to do all the above that their pastors and churches work do diligently to brainwash them into believing.

        All of the reasons as to why they voted for Thump are strictly
        selfish and nothing more.

        Reverse LGBT rights: Selfish. Accomplishes NOTHING.
        Reverse Roe v. Wade: Selfish. Accomplishes NOTHING.
        Install RFRA and PADA laws: Selfish. Accomplishes NOTHING.

        Conspicuously missing from the “Christian” artists “moral”
        construct is all the other “sinners” that they will gladly accommodate, such as adulterers. (Providing service for a divorced person’s wedding is participating in the sin of adultery.) This proves their agenda is indeed bigotry towards gays under the false guise of being “biblical.”

        They are cherry-picking cafeteria “Christians.”

        Again I plagiarize another bloggers signature—
        “censorship is denial of free speech.”

        • DT

          Yes, if they wish to refuse service to everyone the bible claims is a sinner, then that would be unbiased. But then again, the bible says everyone is a sinner so that would mean there is no point into going into business in the first place.

          I seem to recall one of the central characters of the faithy tale–the one the religion is named after (you’d kinda think his words would be important to his own alleged followers)–saying to treat others as you wish to be treated. But that quote goes against the bigot’s bigotry, so they just choose to ignore their “lord and savior.”

      • Chief Mojo

        These cut-and-paste responses always bore me to tears. Always dragging out the same old, unimaginative fall-back lines that make no sense whatsoever. To wit: 1.) Always trying to find a way to shoe-horn mixed race (heterosexual) relations into the same box as homosexuals. (As an aside, black people I know just LOVE it whenever the gay-love crowd attempts to make these comparisons). 2.) Your catholic priests vs. rabbis analogy is almost too incomprehensibly moronic to be taken as serious. I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s suffice it to say that Catholic priests and rabbis don’t really have the power to crush anyone’s livelihood the way your beloved government does. Do I really need to explain this or are you really that ignorant? 3.) If you really believe that religious organizations are well protected by the first amendment, then you have either not been paying attention to the news the past few years, or you are simply willfully ignorant. Ask any Christian… If you know any. Dozens of stories out there regarding government officials demanding sermons from pastors. Usually (surprise!) they’re gay, such as the mayor of Houston. But I’m sure you already knew all this, you just choose to overlook it in a sad attempt to buttress your own flawed logic.

        So troll if you must, my sadly misinformed friend, but please, for everyone’s sake, at least be original and try to keep it interesting.

  • Matthew G. Zatkalik

    Pray, Protest, and Protect these folks. Surely there are attorneys that will who will slow up the process. Highlight the oppressors, the oppressors’ attorneys. Boycott. Don’t sit quiet. Don’t move on to some thing new until this is being repudiated.

  • LGBT was never about “love”, and all about “control”.

    • DT

      You misspelled LORD. O:-)

      • BooBooBaby

        You must not know how to spell LOVE!

        • DT

          To clarify, the Lord/god of Abraham was never about love–no quote marks needed–but all about control of the gullible masses.

          The antics of the god character in the mythology show any intelligent, non-indoctrinated person that his actions are not loving toward mankind.

  • FR

    There is a fairly straightforward solution to this. Price the service at an outrageously unattainable cost. The buyer will disappear. Unless they crowdfund or find a donor to pay millions for calligraphy, the issue would be mute. And assuming they do find a donor, perhaps the proceeds could be donated to a worthy cause?

    • DT

      Conniving Christians for Christ?

  • BooBooBaby

    So why will they be thrown in Jail!?
    Why is it when Muslim business owners are caught on camera refusing services to Gays because of their religion no one freaks out or cares! It Never makes national news on those Looney Lying Lefty Racist Race Baiting Liberal Media Outlets!

    • DT

      Did the alleged gay man, that you speak of, file a complaint? Do you have a link to the video of a gay man being refused service from a Muslim bakery?

  • newsletter_ad.jpg
  • image-8236964-11036105-1480374595000
  • image-8236964-12800113-1482566408000