No, Arizona Protecting Religious Freedom is Not “Jim Crow”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


First-Amendment-on-scroll1

Back when gay rights advocates were first pushing for gay marriage, they claimed that they only wanted equality and that no one would be compelled to participate in gay marriage events.

They lied.

As soon as gay marriage went on the books, and in some states where it wasn’t even on the books, religious bakeries and photographers were assaulted with demands that they participate in gay ceremonies, sued if they didn’t and ordered to take part in gay ceremonies or face fines… and even jail time.

States have responded by trying to pass measures that will protect religious freedom and freedom of speech. That means preventing incredible abuses of power by the gay rights lobby like this…

Participate in Gay Wedding… or Go to Jail for a Year

A Colorado bakery owner illegally discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake a wedding cake for the pair last year because of his Christian religious beliefs, a judge ruled on Friday.

Phillips is a devoted Christian who has an unwavering faith. She said he is a person of such deep faith that he won’t even bake Halloween-themed treats – at all.

Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, to accommodate sex-couples or face fines and other possible penalties.

“The complainants can sue him civilly in the regular courts system or he can potentially be prosecuted by the district attorney for up to twelve months in jail.”

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

No one in this country should be sent to jail for a year because their religious beliefs prevent them from participating in a gay ceremony.

Cases like these should not be happening in a free country. This is about protecting the First Amendment which was here before gay marriage… and will hopefully still exist after gay marriage is done.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has ruled that Christian photographers do not have the right to decline photographing a gay “wedding,” even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.

The case began in 2006, when Vanessa Willock approached the Albuquerque-based business to take pictures of her ceremony with girlfriend Misti Collinsworth and was politely declined. She found another photographer for the event but pursued legal action anyway.

The Huguenins argued they did not discriminate against homosexuals but “did not want to convey through [Huguenin]’s pictures the story of an event celebrating an understanding of marriage that conflicts with [the owners’] beliefs.”

Cases like these do not belong in America. And the only way to stop them is by reinforcing the First Amendment.

The ACLU took in 63 million dollars in 2011. It has net assets of almost 300 million dollars. Anthony Romero, its Exec Director, takes in 342,858 dollars.

And like most bullies, the ACLU picked a target its own size, Barronelle Stutzman, a 70-year-old woman who runs a flower shop. For those who think that gay marriage can be folded on, the case of Arlene’s Flowers provides another sobering wake-up call.

Homosexual activists are not looking to live and let live. They are out to force their way on everyone else at any cost. Even shamelessly going after a 70-year-old woman who was only following her faith.

The American Civil Liberties Union also stepped into the fray, sending Stutzman a letter announcing it would file a separate civil suit for damages on behalf of the engaged couple unless she agrees to provide flowers without discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, publish a letter of apology in the newspaper and donate $5,000 to a local youth center, in lieu of attorneys’ fees.

“Your refusal to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding has hurt them very deeply. It is a disturbing reminder of the history of discrimination and disparate treatment that they and other gay men and women have experienced over the years,” ACLU attorney Michael R. Scott said in the letter.

Gay rights activists have responded to these attempts to protect the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights from their assault by crying “Jim Crow.”

Protecting religious freedom is not Jim Crow. It’s the right of people to opt out of a religious ceremony whose premise their religion does not accept. The United States has Separation of Church and State, something that liberals insist upon. It ought to have a separation of Unitarian Church and State as well.

No American should be jailed for a year for not participating in a gay wedding. Any gay rights group that demands this isn’t protecting Jim Crow, it’s attacking the basic civil rights of every traditional American.

  • tagfu222

    How good are the pictures of the groom kissing the groom going to be when all the photographer can think of is, “Ugh, where is my eyewash?”

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Taking bad photos of two men kissing each other is also like Jim Crow

      • laura r

        i worked as a photographer many years ago. in order to take good photos, you have to comfortable. any creative venue (like floral arrangements etc), also requires a comfort level. its @the decretion of the “artist”.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Yes. You can’t force someone to create.

          • truebearing

            Next gays will sue heterosexuals because they can procreate. This is all about spite and revenge.

          • Sonnys_Mom

            Gay activists already refer to the rest of us as “breeders”…

          • truebearing

            it seems they are consumed with hate for what they can’t be. Lesbians hate men, even though they imitate men in every way they can. You have to be pretty screwed up to hate what you emulate. It boils down to self hate. The reason they are so rabid about politics is because they hope to “fundamentally transform” everything in society until homosexuality is considered the norm and “breeders” are second class, or worse.

          • kikorikid

            “self-hate” springing from guilt at having denied
            the substance of their primary socialization.
            Ever increasing aggressiveness that affirms and
            re-affirms the betrayal of Self for Lust.

          • LeftistsStink

            I have often wondered about that…why lesbians and gays imitate the very ones they despise. I have thought it was pure mockery as I think gay “marriage” is also, but self hatred, as you say, as well as hatred of civilized society, is quite plausible as the root. Crazy.

          • A Z

            Plus Christianists, Bi-Bull thumpers and other names.

  • Jeff Jankowiak

    Daniel…I am sorry. These people have all broken the law. Stop trying to defend their actions. And if you really cared about the 1st Amendment lets move the discussion towards my rights. See when you advocated and passed these state amendments you stomped all over my religious freedoms. My church and faith accepts and marries gays, lesbians and their families. But that did not matter. You said it was not permitted. I assume when you doing this you thought the 1st amendment was referring to the religious rights of the majority.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Your church can marry anyone it wants. No cops ever went to a church and broke up a gay wedding.

      If someone can be jailed for a year for not taking part in a gay wedding, then maybe it’s time that we rethink what’s more important, a gay wedding or someone’s life.

    • A Z

      “See when you advocated and passed these state amendments you stomped all over my religious freedoms” How?

      How is that a bakery not selling to you violates your 1st amendment rights?
      “Phillips ….he won’t even bake Halloween-themed treats – at all.”

      O have eaten/made plenty of Halloween themed cookies. So if I ask Mr Phillips to make some Halloween themed cookies and he refuses my rights are violated?

      So are you forced to buy from these bakeries or photographers?
      You want to force them to sell to you.

      • tagalog

        To them, it is necessary that some eggs be broken in order to make the omelet they have in mind.

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        By telling me and my faith that gays and lesbians are not permitted to marry. Please read the 1st Amendment. Then come back to me.
        And as you are protecting this bad business person…do you know he has baked a cake for two dogs who were married? Now who is stomping on religious values?

        • A Z

          Baking a cake for 2 dogs is a bit of whimsy.

          I already have read the 1st amendment. It does not say that you can shove your religion down anyone’s throat.

    • A Z

      “My church and faith accepts and marries gays, lesbians and their families”

      You have a church? Which one? Do you actually go to church? You should be able to provide a name for the church as you are posting under your name.

      If we asked the pastor of your church, if it would be violating the 1st amendment of a photographer declined a commission to photograph a gay weeding, would your pastor say it was a 1st amendment issue?

      The 1st amendment relates to press freedom versus the government. However now 1st amendment seems to mean what eve you want it to mean.

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        First…my faith is just that…my faith. You dont get to pass judgment on it nor judgment on my pastor. As for the 1st Amendment it reads as follows…prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion. Well your treasured marriage amendments did just that. Or did I miss the words “religion of the majority”. This seems very obvious to me. I welcome your rebuttal.

        • A Z

          You are forcing him to participate in your religion, thereby impeding his free exercise of religion.

          You might want to think about it.

          You can try force and boycotts. But sooner or later the boycotts will be reciprocated.

          When did you know you were gay? When you were 2?

        • A Z

          “First…my faith is just that…my faith”

          Not asking you to give the address of your particular church.

          Just want to know which denomination it is and whether it is a liberal or conservative synod. that way we know where you might be coming from.

          But whatever. You style is typical.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Yes you were. And that is way to personal of information to share on the internet. But I will let you know our faith is very progressive and accepting of all Christians. We love our Lord Jesus Christ and defend him when people try and put words in his mouth. But I want to assure you we love him and our faith and we do not deserve to be attacked by traditional religious zealots.

          • A Z

            You apparently post under your real name, but you do not want to say if you belong to a liberal Episcopalian, liberal Presbyterian or liberal whatever church.

            Cuz, that would be too much information… LOL!

            Of course, if you named the denomination, we would draw the appropriate conclusions.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            No. Because when I come on these sites I am only going to speak for me. I do not speak for my faith nor do I try to attempt to use my faith as a weapon over others. I wish others would do the same. So no…I will not name my denomination. My leaders do that on their own accord. So I guess you will just need to do a bit more research.

          • A Z

            ” I do not speak for my faith nor do I try to attempt to use my faith as a weapon over others”

            Apparently, you do.

            “First…my faith is just that…my faith. You don’t get to pass judgment on it nor judgment on my pastor”

            Your pastor pats you on the shoulder on the way out of church service and in stead of saying “Go and sin no more” he says “It’s okay do it again. It does not matter”.

            He must be a very liberal pastor.

            So yes I would like to know the denomination. I know you will not tell me, but I’m good with you being passive aggressive. If I really wanted to know by all means possible, I could look it up. It would not be hard & I would not have to do any hacking.

            But like I said be your passive aggressive self.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            My pastor does not pat me on the shoulder and say go sin again. He embraces me just like he embraces the couple behind me. Maybe it is the definition of sin that you need to look at. Not my denomination.

          • A Z

            We have seen the Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches dwindle in membership. We have also seen them split with the conservative portion being healthier. We have seen the liberal portions of the churches sue the heck out of the conservative portion. They will not be able to fill the pews, but they want the church building if for no other reason than spite and for the $$$.
            We have also seen white conservative congregations look to Black bishops in Africa.

            Look there are not too many healthy hosts left to infect. On the cusp of success the denouement will not be pretty. The LGBT are killing all the hosts.

          • A Z

            You attack ” traditional religious” with out and out pride. You call them zealots. Yet, you do not want to name your denomination.

            That’s special.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            I define “zealots” as people who use their faith as a weapon to discriminate against others and particularly against other faiths.

          • A Z

            Sorry you invaded our space first. We should have known this day was coming when eHarmony was sued. There had to have been gay matchmaking sites already. That is in addition to Grindr.

            BTW are you a bottom or are you a top?

            It is an important question. How else could the founder of eHarmony know how to match up gays?

            After the all the turmoil from the lawsuit against eHarmony, do gays even use it and does it work for them any better than other sites that cater to a gay clientele?

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            You are really insulting. I am surprised you know this topic so well.

          • A Z

            I actually did not know there were tops and bottoms until the sheriff of PIMA country got outed by his illegal boyfriend.

            Did some gay activist really think that the damage would be confined to “We found another conservative hypocrite argument”

            It was mind boggling. Just when you think it can get worse it did. Between that and Jervis with his worse zex ever series, I know that being gay is a mental condition.

            How long have you been sick?

          • A Z

            This is what you are fighting for.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XeUHA5RiE4

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            You are spending to much time on the computer. Where do you find this crap?

          • A Z

            Someone else posted it to this forum. So I checked it out.

            I have also visited 3 gay blogs and read up on gay parades and seen the pictures.

            It is not crap but part of the new norm, you and others are trying to impose.

          • A Z

            Here you go Jeff. This is what you are defending.

            I see a sick person in need of the services of a mental health professional.

            You see beauty.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3CBhCoT69U

            You are in denial.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            So you are assuming this is the definition of gays and lesbians. Do you want me to start posting videos of heterosexuals doing stupid things? Do you want me to start posting videos of heterosexuals getting married in Las Vegas and getting divorced 15 minutes later? How about videos of the number of children which have been thrown away and abandoned by there so called parents? Listen there are fringes in every society. Stop using them as an excuse to deny rights to others. It is just wrong and is an excellent example of prejudice.

          • A Z

            Go ahead. We can analyze whether they are liberal, conservative or moderate. We can see how many fall where percentage-wise.

            Unlike you I am not trying to extend LGBT to LGBTQ or further like it already has been.

            I try to keep it simple. I don’t condone quickie divorces., so it it no flint off my back if you post them.

            Take Carmen Electra. She had a Las Vegas Wedding. Was she liberal back then or conservative. Bring up your examples.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Not interested in debating you any longer. I think you only seek to denigrate gays and lesbians by finding fringe elements to support your animosity. Listen it is Sunday…whey don’t you go to your house of worship and ask what JESUS would do on this topic? Maybe it will get you to a better place. I am surely not going to help you.

          • A Z

            You can’t help me, because you are sick.

    • DogmaelJones1

      Mr. Jankowiak: If I own a business, I have a right to refuse service to you for whatever reason I choose. I am not a “public service,” and neither are photographers and florists. If you don’t like the reason I choose not to accept your business, go elsewhere. I do booksignings (Sparrowhawk, A Crimson Overture, China Basin, etc.) and if you showed up at my table and demanded that I speak with you, and I knew you were a homosexual or a Muslim, or perhaps just because you had body odor, I would ask you to move away from the table. There is freedom is association, but no right to forced association. What “cost to society” exists if I refuse to deal with you? Your “hurt feelings”? Take a hike and don’t darken my doorstep again. I’m not public property, not a charge or ward of the state. I don’t own you, and you don’t own me.

      • truebearing

        His hurt feelings have to be assuaged by hurting those of his enemy. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to find out that gay activists are targeting Christian establishments with the hope of being refused service. There is no group they hate more than Christians, though they claim to be opposed to hate. Apparently they only oppose hate when they are the ones being hated.

        The civil rights industry has become the conduit to power in America. It no longer has anything to do with equality. It has to do with power, and the ability to use that power to inflict suffering on those who opposed them. No group is more vindictive that the radical gays.

        • bob smith

          “Apparently they only oppose hate when they are the ones being hated.” Incorrect!

          They envy hate and consume it as if it were foie gras.

          It is their prima facie evidence that they use to substantiate anything they wish to accomplish via the subversion of facts.

          If you were correct, gays and their spokesmen would be screaming from the roof tops at muslims and their religious cult who, unless raping children though bacha bazi would rather hang them all.

          They don’t because each of their causes are united; hate everything the west was founded upon because it is inconvenient to their wont and poses an impediment to their need. Loot, pillage and obfuscate all common sense and when the music stops, they who remain will fight over the chairs.

          Look how disassociated they were concerning Putin’s anti gay stance…they couldn’t have cared less about their brethren because the goals of narcissistic people/movements are not about the common good, they are just that, narcissistic and self absorbing at the cost of common good and common sense.

          • Bingeman

            Your post made me think of what happened in my city over this whole “Putin/anti-gay” issue.
            There was some minor outcry over it initially but now there is a big to-do about the city councilors deciding against a call to fly the “Pride” flag at City Hall.The rules are:only country,provincial and city flags….no special interest flags.
            This whole thing was ridiculous.The thing with Putin was forgotten and everything focused on how atrocious it was that the gay flag would not be flown over here…like you said,”narcissistic and self absorbed.

          • bob smith

            “This whole thing was ridiculous”…bang on. Narcissism and self absorbency…soon enough they may use that as a marketing slogan for
            j-cloths and their rainbow flag.

          • Bingeman

            If any one at the j-cloth making factory sees your idea,you KNOW they’ll actually start making them in the rainbow colors…and you won’t even get any credit!

          • laura r

            if anyone is creating homophobia they are.

          • bob smith

            well said

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The bizarre metamorphosis of iFeelAmerica are the judicial rulings that hurt feelings matter more than the Constitution.

      • Daniel

        I hope this attitude is not based on claim of Christianity because it has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. You seem to have missed the point about revilers not having part in the kingdom of heaven. You know, the revilers listed right after homosexuality.

    • laura r

      jeff: pretend for one minute you are getting married. its a really special day. right? why would you WANT a photographer @ your wedding who is repelled by you? a caterer who is saying awful things about you behind your back? what good would that be? isnt it self defeating? dont you have any self esteem?? answer that. that is why businesses say “gay friendly” you know the buzzword.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        No he doesn’t have any self-esteem. Hence the bottomless insecurity of constantly forcing everyone to affirm his choices…

        …or go to jail.

        • truebearing

          This so typical of every constituency of the Left. Attempt to use political power to normalize and legitimize who you are. Blame anyone you can and then, if you get the power you seek, use it to get revenge, in an evil attempt to fill your spiritual black hole.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            I assume will then agree your behavior is like every consitituency on the right who feels they are better than their fellow citizens and they somehow have a magic line to our Lord and Savior. Well guess what…you dont.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Again self-esteem issues.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            No. The self esteem is just fine. You are the insecure person who thinks they are better than others. So who has the self esteem issue?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The guy obsessed with what I think

        • Jeff Jankowiak

          Self Esteem? My problem is I have to much and I am not afraid to call you out when you are acting like a buffoon. See people like me are no longer afraid of people like you. In the very near future the SCOTUS is going to you not only have been treating gays and lesbians as second class citizens but that it is in direct violation of our founding documents. I know it is going to hurt…but dont worry. You will eventually get over it.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Too much self esteem is insecurity and overcompensation which is what all your chest beating amounts to.

            Those who are secure don’t need to trumpet it.

          • A Z

            Gays claim homosexuality is genetic or epigenetic , etc.

            They also say that breeders make gay children.

            Let’s assume they are right for argument’s sake.

            We do not have to do repairative therapy for teenagers. If it were epigenetic we could erase it and leave the foetus viable and healthy.

            If it were genetic but not epigenetic, we could abort. Not everyone opposed to homosexuality is Christian.

            Just a thought. We are not afraid of you either.

            The LGBT community will eventually get over its’ mass psychosis.

            Have nice day

          • Daniel

            People born with both sexual organs must really screw with your bias.

          • A Z

            Every process has hiccups. Reproduction is a complicated process. If it went perfectly every time that would be suspect.

            So sorry that does not screw with my mind. Intersex never has. It is a mistake like have 3 X chromosomes or having Down’s syndrome.

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am down to why vertebrates have 4 limbs (& no more or less), why internal organs are asymmetrically place in the body, handedness & more.

            I really like the hydroskeleton theory of evolution.

            I read everything on evolution from precursor chemicals (RNA 1st, DNA 1st to others SCIAM JUNE 2007) in the primordial soup on up. I want to know it all. In all of this never once did I have to reference Queer theory.

          • Chuck

            Try a barbershop. If they do not like you they will not serve you at all or well. They will not acknowledge your presence or tell you their hand slipped. This is a large issue than gays or straights. But don’t worry, you will eventually wake up.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            The barbershop can refuse you because they do not know how to cut an afro. But if they say they will refuse to cut your hair because your are African American…get ready for a administrative action and a possible civil suit.

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        Laura…put yourself in the shoes of this couple. Do you know what it must be like to be told you will not be served in an establishment? I am sure it hurts. And I am sure if this ever happened to you or your spouse you would screaming at the top of your lungs. As for the couple…I agree with you..they should have done a bit more research and found out these photographers and bakers were bad business people before they approached them. And before you defend them further it would have been just as easy to say “I am booked up on that day and cannot provide such service.” But when they said I am not doing it because I find it religiously offensive that is where the problem begins. These business owners drew first blood and now they are paying the price.

    • SandyLester

      Cake is not a right

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        The ability to buy and compete for that cake is. It is called public accomodation and equal access for a minority.

        • SandyLester

          Ok, lets do this.

          At what point does my right to serve or not serve interfere with your right to cake?

          Lets, say I have a restaurant which is geared for families, and you(collective you) walk into the restaurant in a wife beater and tidy whities.
          Do I have a right to refuse you service? Verses your right to wear the clothing of your choice?

          If I own a bakery and because I have religious objections refuse to bake a wedding cake, I will bake any other cake you wish but not that.
          I even supply you with a list of bakeries who will make a wedding cake, why are your rights superior to mine?

          The couple in question(news) had the ability to purchase a wedding cake from no less than five bakeries, however they choose this bakery and immediately went to the press. Do you honestly believe this incident was about a wedding cake?

          • A Z

            “The couple in question(news) had the ability to purchase a wedding cake from no less than five bakeries, however they choose this bakery and immediately went to the press. Do you honestly believe this incident was about a wedding cake?”

            Naw, they (The Gay community) have been planning this for a while.

          • SandyLester

            I agree 100%. This action had zero to do with a “wedding cake”.

    • tagalog

      They violate the law the way Gandhi violated the law of the English raj.
      And the response should be exactly the same, i.e., refuse to obey and demand that the maximum penalty be imposed. That will persuade the people of the injustice being perpetrated in the name of some caricature of “tolerance.”

      Being sentenced to a year in jail will go a long way toward bringing home the absurdity of the present push masquerading as a civil rights movement.

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        Tag…sorry. We set commercial laws for a reason. Individual business owners do not get to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. What if I said I am not going to charge sales tax because they use that revenue to make bombs which is against my religion? What if I choose not to keep my business up to health and sanitary standards because my religous is against using poisonous cleaners? If you dont like the laws…change them but to break them will have consequences. And in this case a year in jail.

        • tagalog

          That’s why I said what I said. When the law is enforced to its maximum degree, we find out how much we want it.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Commercial laws don’t trump the Constitution

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            You are correct that is why we have the 1st and 14th Amendments. And by what you are doing you are just stomping on the very thing you hold most dear. Please think about this. And I urge you to do this before the SCOTUS does it for you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re the one stomping on First.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            No I think you are the one which stomped on the 1st Amendment. See my church and faith accepts gays, lesbians and their family. When you voted or supported these amendments you did so without any respect to my faith. I have reread and reread the 1st and I don’t see reference to the religion of the majority. Do you?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No law prevented your church from marrying gays.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Yes it did. They said the marriages would not be recognized by the state or federal government. Essentially, invalidating the blessing. When was the last time you had that happen in your church with a heterosexual couple.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If your blessing needs government recognition, then you believe in government, nor God

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If your blessing needs government recognition, then you believe in government, nor God

    • truebearing

      Jeff, I agree. You are sorry. Very, very sorry. Your “reasoning” is apparently emanating from the limbic portion of your brain.

      There is no law mandating that a person can be forced to violate their religious beliefs, especially over something as unimportant as a wedding cake. Their are no “customer rights” provisions in the constitution or law code. That is ridiculous.

      If a majority voted on a state amendment, that is the result of representative government in action. No one sent you to jail for ignoring state amendments, but that isn’t equivalent even if you had been arrested because there is no law that forces anyone to sell anything to anything to any one.

      Not getting to buy a Christian made birthday cake is not protected under the 1st amendment, or any other. This is all about gay revenge, spite, in-your-face bullying. Whoever coined the term “Homo-Nazis” was talking about this kind of behavior.

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        Your response is bordering on the inane. First there are laws in most municipalties and states regarding public accomodations. Or are those laws invalid and should be ignored? As for violating their religious beliefs…do you know how many people said serving blacks was violating their religious beliefs and freedom of association? How did that all work out for them? In our nation we have determined their exist minority groups which given the chance the majority would use some “freedom” in an attempt to keep the minority in a second class status. Well we are going to shortly see what the SCOTUS has to say on this issue. They are going to read the documents created by our founding fathers and then we will know. I hope when this ruling finally is presented to us you are going to politely and with grace accept the ruling. To not do so would only be considered un-American.

    • Sonnys_Mom

      As David Horowitz wrote: ‘An SDS radical once wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” ‘ Always about the next power grab, but carefully presented as an issue of charity or religion or freedom– whatever appeals to naive, low-information citizens who don’t understand the back-story and haven’t read After the Ball…

    • Jakareh

      “See when you advocated and passed these state amendments you stomped all over my religious freedoms. My church and faith accepts and marries gays, lesbians and their families.”

      The amazing thing is that this individual probably really believes he has a point. In fact, he probably congratulated himself for thinking of it. The liberal mind is a diseased mind.

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        I am not proud of reaching this conclusion. I have watch your activities for 10 years since the passage of these absurd laws which violate the 1st Amendment of our treasure Constitution. For your benefit…”prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion. I do not see the word “majority” do you? We will soon see what the SCOTUS has to say. I hope you will accept their guidance with grace and kindness.

    • Smoking Hamster

      I am a Christian and there are times when one must obey God rather than man.

      This debate is not over whether gays and lesbians can marry, it is whether anybody is obligated to accept those marriages as valid. I cannot as the entire body of Scripture is against the idea of homosexuality.

      I don’t think I would be able to compartmentalize my faith like you ask these business owners to do. We always hear liberals calling for moral business operation but then when that happens they object. What they really mean is “we want all businesses to conform to OUR version of morals.”

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        So are you saying we should not be obligated to provide services to interracial marriages because of our religous beliefs? We have created public accomodation laws to help ensure everyone has equal access to goods and services. We also want to maintain peace within the public square. Allowing one group to deny another group equal access can and will lead to civil unrest.

        • Smoking Hamster

          If I as a white male married a black woman I wouldn’t want to do business with a racist who would disapprove and there are plenty of other businesses that will accept my cake order. I also wouldn’t want to force myself on a hotel who objected to that. I don’t want my money supporting their racism. There are plenty of other places I could go. I don’t understand how gay and lesbians don’t get that.

          So no, I would not support laws infringing on conscious even if it were a racist exercising his right to moral objection.

          I didn’t know that we needed to force a few Christians to violate their sense of morality to stop a gay riot…

          • A Z

            I patronized (with my nonwhite spouse) a Dairy Queen and one of the workers there just had the biggest sneer on her face, when she served the ice cream cones. Now the soft serve machines are in the front and you can watch them as they make it. Still the ice cream cone did not taste very good and I tossed it. There was probably nothing wrong with it.

            I can’t prove anything, but that sneer stuck in my mind.

            Would I force them to serve me? Heck No. But they are going to lose business. I never went back there.

            A person cannot watch a foos servers actions 100% of the time. Food servers can do more than make your tummy sick, they can wipe you out and no one would ever be able to prove it. So no, I am not going to force people to do anything.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The best way to punish a business… is by not doing business with them.

          • Daniel

            You were served. I wonder what reaction you would have had if the counter person would have said, “We don’t server your kind here.”

          • A Z

            Are you feeling well? Are you high?

            I would rather not be served, than to be given substandard fare or for someone to pull a Jesse Jackson and spit in the food. He is not the only one. I heard kids in highschool talking about the same thing. Then there have been the viral videos. Just remember not everyone, who stoops that low, is dumb enough to document it with a video.

            “Now the soft serve machines are in the front and you can watch them as they make it.”

            Did you catch that sentence of did you merely skim my remarks?

      • Daniel

        What we mean is pay your employees fair, don’t destroy the environment, pay your taxes, etc. We didn’t mean pass judgement on your clientele. Morality is a personal responsibility, not a spectator sport. Try worrying less about what other people are doing.

        If your public business obligations conflict with your religious beliefs, you are welcome to close your business. Nobody is forcing you to operate that business.

        • Smoking Hamster

          “If your public business obligations conflict with your religious beliefs, you are welcome to close your business. Nobody is forcing you to operate that business.”

          You must be a leftist. I’ve never seen such cognitive dissonance.

          When Christians pass judgement on others morality is a private matter and should remain so. When you disagree with a leftist and refuse to service events you disagree with, you should be forced out of business by state enforced morality.

    • Habbgun

      I love the fascism. Its the law. Obamacare is the law. This is the law yet when something you don’t like is the law you don’t respect it.

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        How come everything that goes against your “ideals” is considered facism? Do you ever just once try and think about others challenges? Or are you just so conceited living up in your ivory tower?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Do you?

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Sorry buddy. I live in the real world.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That would be the real world in which homosexuality is fixed and unalterable, despite plenty of evidence of people altering their behavior.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Daniel you need to get to know a few gay persons. This is not just about what you are calling a behavior. This their lives and their children’s lives. You need to put away this stereotypes or preconceived ideas. Until you do you will be trapped in a circle of ignorance which only leads to an unhappy ending.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            They have no children. It’s basic biology. Unless, like Bill de Blasio’s wife, they go straight.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Yes they do. I know some amazing parents who just happen to be gay which have awesome children.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No you don’t. You may know some gay men or women who adopted someone else’s children or contrived to produce children from one partner using an actual woman or man.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Actually I know excellent parents of children whose irresponsible heterosexual “parents” threw them away. One could not kick her drug addiction and the other “parents” were respecting the sanctity of marriage, drove through a 10 minute Las Vegas church and decided a few months later that it was to hard. I think you need to grow up and know how the real world works. Or maybe the door is locked in your “ivory tower” and you cant get out.

        • Habbgun

          Another beg off. Why are some laws the laws and some others are wrong and need to be overturned? I’m not getting its the law argument. You just happen to really like this one. That’s all. I don’t exactly live in an ivory tower. Very much wish I did. Donations accepted.
          By the way I have often found that my challenges are shared by others. Asserting my rights helps others. Seeing that makes me much more determined.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            I want you to assert your rights. But do not object to others making sure you are following our rule book…aka the US Constitution which includes those pesky words of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

          • Habbgun

            Jeff, you are just being silly. You know quite well what we are talking about here is forced participation in a rite. A rite that not everyone religiously agrees with. It goes beyond gay marriage. Should someone who doesn’t believe in interfaith marriage be forced to perform custom services at a ceremony if one of the people being wed is of the same denomination and the provider of the service does not like being seen as approving of the wedding. I would say no. Remember one party is not harming, merely denying services and foregoing a paycheck. This is not someone being denied services of what is usually an anonymous purchase where the person buying has a reasonable expectation of privacy but is being singled out. The issue is this…..must I forced into a rite in which for me has religious significance believing that marriage is holy and that holiness is subject to standards. I would say no. I would be happy to provide real estate services, cars, lighting fixtures…screwdrivers…you name it. I like to make a buck. Servicing a homosexual wedding I will not.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            I do not think so. These business owners are not a religious institution…they are offering services to the general public. So are you assuming this baker could also refuse to sell a cake to an interracial couple because he is a strict Christian? I don’t think that is what you want. But I welcome you to think about it.

          • Habbgun

            I gave you a likely scenario and not racist. You twisted it. Guess you lose the argument. Let’s hope we have the kind of cops that strongarm bakers and florists. Prison guards who show these people they are no different than any law breaking scum. Yes it is a paradise you are building.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Sorry. I am not losing the argument. And you are going learn when you see more vetoes and judicial actions which tell you that you cannot behave this way.

          • Habbgun

            No I would learn from going to jail. I would not pay a fine or report to jail because that would be participating with the state in something it does not have a right to dictate. My beliefs. Part of any religious expression is doing something and being seen in the proper way. If a workman decides to get an early start on a project and comes on the Sabbath you send him away. You do not even give the appearance that working on the Sabbath is proper even though you yourself are not engaging in it. Given different people have different Sabbath days this is a common scenario. I will not be put in a position where my participation is seen as endorsement.
            This “crime” has a fine and a one year jail sentence. What a great law that targets the bakers, the florists and the salesman. How positively brave. Someone will go to jail for this law. Someone will not compromise their belief. You do know what will happen then don’t you? Some group like the Westboro Church will demand gays bake them their cakes for their “celebrations”. The government will back the gays though. For now.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Yes and this is what gays and lesbians have done…they have gone to jail…faced your “slings and arrows” to get a seat at our banquet table. If you think you are so persecuted…go for it. But trying to denigrate your fellow citizens in our melting pot ALWAYS loses. So I say again go for it.

          • Habbgun

            You are being overly dramatic…..Stonewall c’mon….and yes religious freedom will always trump the melting pot because that is what the melting pot was originally for. We lose that and we lose everything….anyway good luck convincing the Islamicists….they are right outside the door.

          • Habbgun

            One more point……the business is the agency of the person. It is there to support them how they wish to leave, the lives they lead and their pursuit of happiness which is many cases and for the Founding Fathers religious life. You are physically abusing a group when another group will happily have your business. This is not a fight against Jim Crow. Jim Crow was a governmental system that would limit all bakeries. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!
            This is all just a group that has the same sexual leanings and a need for control. Very beautiful.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Sorry, either I am slow are you have been drinking and typing at the same time. There is no difference and using religion as an excuse with Jim Crow laws. We have come a long way in the last 50 years. This type of legislation has little chance of passing and zero chance of surviving judicial scrutiny.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            See all laws enacted, either through the legislature branch, executive branch, or by the MOB all have to face judicial scrutiny. And that is exactly what is happening.

  • SandyLester

    So homosexuals according to this law are prohibited from eating cake?
    That’s just strange

  • Michael Polson

    The problem with all of your examples is that each “victim” that was forced to participate at a gay even runs a business and businesses cannot discriminate or they will face jail time. It was part of the Jim Crow laws that a business didn’t have to provide services due to an individual’s race. That was outlawed and now no business can choose not to provide services to anyone for any reason.

    Businesses can have their own beliefs as long as no one is being discriminated against for any reason and declining services for a specific reason such as being gay, black, muslim, or Canadian is illegal.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “now no business can choose not to provide services to anyone for any reason.”

      Ever seen a “No Shirt, No Service” sign?

      • Michael Polson

        Yes, I have. But you can’t discriminate against someone who’s not wearing a shirt. That’s a compliance issue not a race/sexuality issue. The difference is, one can choose to wear a shirt or not but they can’t choose their sexuality or race.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Whether one can choose sexual orientation is a matter of debate…

          …in any case, one chooses whether or not to have a gay wedding

          • Michael Polson

            Sexual orientation is most definitely embedded into a person’s DNA just like eye color and the amount of hair one can grow. A “gay wedding” however is not a real thing. A wedding is a wedding, the gender of the individuals involved is irrelevant.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If sexual orientation were embedded, then it would be permanent. It clearly is not.

            A gay wedding is a fictional religious ceremony that the First Amendment allows people to choose not to participate in.

            To compel people to participate in your religious ceremony against their beliefs is a violation of their civil rights.

          • truebearing

            The meaning of “wedding” is embedded in thousands of years of human cultural DNA. The pairing of heterosexual couples is embedded in their DNA. To call something a wedding when it clearly violates the DNA rule you cited is wrong and intentionally warps the meaning of the word. If heterosexuals came up with a new word for weddings between straight people, it would be only a matter of weeks before you’d start howling “discrimination” because you aren’t included.

            Why is the “DNA” argument” legitimate for gays but not heterosexuals?

          • Michael Polson

            What in the world are you talking about? The whole concept of a wedding is something you learn as you grow up. Your environment teaches you what you believe a wedding is. It’s not anything set in stone because it is a concept that can be changed in your mind.

            I grew up believing it is only between a man and a woman, then the idea of same-sex marriage entered my head and after a while, I became comfortable with the idea because why should the genders matter? The only thing that matters is if the love is real.

          • AnyGivenSaturday

            “I became comfortable with the idea because why should the genders matter? The only thing that matters is if the love is real.”

            You’ve inadvertently made an argument for marriage of relatives and polygamists.

          • Michael Polson

            Of course you’d take the adult route and be as facetious as possible, eh?

          • AnyGivenSaturday

            “Of course you’d take the adult route and be as facetious as possible, eh?”

            No. The context was to illustrate there must be boundaries and limits to the definition of a marriage. Doing so requires discriminating against those who wish to expand marriage beyond what the people of a state wish to accept. There is no way to accommodate everyone.

          • hiernonymous

            And? There are parts of the world where first cousin marriages are not only acceptable but encouraged. There are also parts of the world where marriage includes more than two people. You’ve been socialized to think of those things as ‘wrong,’ and certainly one can argue about the pros and cons of those forms of marriage, but there’s nothing inherently absurd about an argument that can be used to support those as well.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Ah, how do we know anything is wrong anyway.

            There’s an argument to be made for people marrying goats and inanimate objects.

            And there are cultures that marry off 5-year-olds. We’ve just been socialized to think of those things as “wrong”.

            But who are we to judge their culture.

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, that can be addressed rather simply. A fair rule governing sexual relations (and, by implication, marriage) is that every party must provide informed consent. That excludes minors, those who are coerced, animals, etc.

            As I noted, you can make arguments about the two cases listed in OP. It would be interesting to hear your argument that having multiple partners in a marriage is wrong, given the prevalence of that form of marriage among the patriarchs of the Old Testament, but that’s not really the final word on morality.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Actually, that can be addressed rather simply. A fair rule governing sexual relations (and, by implication, marriage) is that every party must provide informed consent. That excludes minors, those who are coerced, animals, etc.”

            Can I marry myself?

            “As I noted, you can make arguments about the two cases listed in OP. It would be interesting to hear your argument that having multiple partners in a marriage is wrong, given the prevalence of that form of marriage among the patriarchs of the Old Testament, but that’s not really the final word on morality.”

            The Bible does not explicitly outlaw polygamy. It was apparently tolerated, and then Jesus stated that it was preferred to have only 1 wife.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Notably every prominent polygamous marriage in the Bible was torn apart by rivalry. That sends a message in and of itself.

          • laura r

            yes. if people choose multiple partners they should not except to be protected under the law. thats goes for muslims as well. i am a libertarian who respects traditional order, & personal responsiblity.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No doubt. But it’s not prohibited by anything that I can think of. I guess we have some individual sovereignty to decide whether it’s wise to make exceptions depending on our own circumstances.

            I think the message is clear that it’s almost always a bad idea even if it seems like a good idea early on.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Bible doesn’t prohibit everything. In Judaism there is a concept that you can behave disgustingly within the bounds of the law, which means that a person can find ways to do things that are wrong, but not explicitly prohibited and that he should know better.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m fully aware of that. Christian morals are almost identical in principal. You may do it, but you’ve got to account for it in the end with God, not with man.

          • hiernonymous

            “Can I marry myself?”

            Could you get your identities in the same place at the same time for the ceremony?

            “The Bible does not explicitly outlaw polygamy. It was apparently
            tolerated, and then Jesus stated that it was preferred to have only 1
            wife.”

            That would seem to undermine the assumption that polygamy is inherently outrageous. Again, one might be able to make a case against it, but the case against it can’t just be assumed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Could you get your identities in the same place at the same time for the ceremony?”

            Maybe, maybe not. Why should I have to? I’m in love and I have rights.

            “That would seem to undermine the assumption that polygamy is inherently outrageous.”

            I’ve never said that it is.

            “Again, one might be able to make a case against it, but the case against it can’t just be assumed.”

            I agree completely.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’ve never said that it is.”

            It was one of the two cases I mentioned in the post to which you were responding.. AnyGivenSaturday had objected “You’ve inadvertently made an argument for marriage of relatives and polygamists.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So marriage will now include any number of “consenting” partners. That should make it easy to get insurance. Will do wonders for family stability as well.

            And once the intrepid Green and PETA campaigners get around to age of consent and species consent laws, we’ll be able to conclude children and animals too.

            What a tolerant society that will be.

          • truebearing

            There are parts of the world where woman are stoned to death for merely being accused of adultery. There are parts of the world where women are sexually mutilated. There are parts of the world where slavery is still practiced. Apparently you think morality is simply a matter of socialization, so none of the things I listed are morally wrong.

            Still stuck in that relativistic solipsism, I see. Well then, who are you to decry slavery when it is socially acceptable in parts of the world? According to your measure, if one believes slavery isn’t immoral, it isn’t, yet you have yammered for three days about how slavery has damaged not only the victims but several generations of the descendants of slaves so severely that they can’t cope with Western culture ( well, some can’t. Plenty have and do quite well everyday).

          • hiernonymous

            “Apparently you think morality is simply a matter of socialization, so none of the things I listed are morally wrong.”

            Then you would have failed to have understood my point. My point is that there are things that are wrong, and there are things that we are simply unfamiliar or uncomfortable with. If something is wrong, then you can articulate a clear reason why it is so.

            I would argue that if a particular custom is prevalent and perceived as right in a large part of the world, that’s a prima facie argument that our perception that it is wrong is a matter of socialization. You have to be very careful to read that precisely and intelligently, however. Prima facie cases are just that – surface arguments that suggest, but do not prove, that something is so.

            For example, in what parts of the world is slavery legal and widely perceived as morally correct? If you could show that it was still widely perceived as moral, one might claim a prima facie case that our objection to it is merely socialization; but that can be countered by an argument establishing a sound basis for its immorality.

            It’s interesting that you raise the case of the sexual mutilation of women. Sexual mutilation of boys is extremely widespread in the United States. The one horrifies you, the other passes unremarked; is there a sound reason that one is bad, and one is good? Are they both bad? Both acceptable?

            “Well then, who are you to decry slavery when it is socially acceptable in parts of the world?”

            A reasoning human being. I don’t argue that the acceptance of a practice elsewhere proves that it is good; it simply suggests that you need to be able to articulate why it is bad. I have no problem articulating why slavery is bad, regardless of how widely accepted, if you need such an argument to convince you.

          • AnyGivenSaturday

            “And? There are parts of the world where first cousin marriages are not only acceptable but encouraged. There are also parts of the world where marriage includes more than two people. You’ve been socialized to think of those things as ‘wrong,’ and certainly one can argue about the pros and cons of those forms of marriage, but there’s nothing inherently absurd about an argument that can be used to support those as well.”

            And what? You missed the point. I already said arguments can be made to expand marriage even further to relatives and polygamists. If two gays demand they be allowed to marry, why not three gays or two brothers? A brother and sister if at least one of them is sterile?

            Every culture has their set of mores, including the importance, meaning and scope of a marriage which is considered a sacred union. If the value of a marriage is profoundly regarded, it’s intuitive to have strict limits on how far one is defined. How many different variations should be allowed before it’s value is degraded to the point of near irrelevancy? With your approach, any individual or group can concoct a novel association and demand that it be legally permissible as a “marriage”.

          • laura r

            its a free country meaning any combo can live together. it would be very complex, & tear the foundation of society if all this was called marriage. any group folks can draw up a legal contract about inheritance. children are another issue, thats the risk of the marrage group. there have been cults all over america who live in strange ways.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There are also parts of the world where marriage includes more than two people. You’ve been socialized to think of those things as ‘wrong,’ and certainly one can argue about the pros and cons of those forms of marriage, but there’s nothing inherently absurd about an argument that can be used to support those as well.”

            That is precisely the point. Why are people arguing for “equal rights for gays” rather than saying that their view of equality before the law includes absolute blindness to gender and no limits in composing marriages?

            Why can’t I marry my brother, cousin mother and father if I want to? If “gays” can be married because of “love” or “equal rights” being interpreted that way, why do they always argue for changing it so little? They call the traditions biased (which they are, but they say the bias is wrong) so they invent a new bias.

            What’s up with that?

            I guess the point is that if marriage means something, it means a man and a woman and if not, then it means anything goes. Literally anything. It’s hypocritical for a “victim class” to have special provisions in the name of equality.

          • hiernonymous

            “Why can’t I marry my brother, cousin mother and father if I want to?”

            I know that the question is offered in a spirit of petulance, but it’s actually a good question.

            The problem with simple “slippery slope” arguments on this issue is that the horrified opponent of homosexual rights lists what he considers the worst possible perversion possible and claims that gay marriage will lead to whatever it is.

            The best response, I suppose, is that if you can’t articulate a sound reason that [insert whatever horrifies you here] is harmful, then your objection probably isn’t as sound as you’re assuming.

            So, for example, when it comes to incestuous marriages, there are some independent arguments that can be brought up against them. But you have to be prepared to raise them and defend them.

            “….why do they always argue for changing it so little?”

            That’s not really an argument. Changes in human rights generally occur incrementally, and occur as those whose interests are immediately affected stand up for themselves.

            “It’s hypocritical for a “victim class” to have special provisions in the name of equality.”

            Your characterization of “special provisions,” of course, is something you’d have to establish, not simply assert. It’s not clear how allowing two men to marry is a “special provision,” but perhaps you have something else in mind.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Everything can be deconstructed until nothing is left except arbitrary custom. The practice has done wonders for American culture and society already.

          • hiernonymous

            So thinking about why we consider something to be right or wrong is dangerous?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Think all you like, just remember that you are the product of a civilization whose peace and order is more fragile than it appears.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Everything can be deconstructed until nothing is left except arbitrary custom. The practice has done wonders for American culture and society already.

          • laura r

            gays have had lifelong partnerships for centuries. we are a one to one society.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your environment teaches you what you believe a wedding is.”

            You mean like the trees and birds? Does the wind sing to the little kids, no matter what their “sexuality DNA?”

            “I grew up believing it is only between a man and a woman, then the idea of same-sex marriage entered my head and after a while, I became comfortable with the idea because why should the genders matter? The only thing that matters is if the love is real.”

            Please explain the relationship between love and marriage according to you and your environmental teachers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sexual orientation is most definitely embedded into a person’s DNA just like eye color and the amount of hair one can grow.”

            Please keep that bullshit reserved for the echo chamber.

          • laura r

            i believe gay is not a choice, they are wired differently. they can have weddings all they want. there is a rise in “gay friendly” businesses, they have many options. its really a non issue.

        • bob smith

          Michael, the separation of church and state is as fundamental to the survival of society and western culture in its totality.

          Can you not see the danger in the precedents being set when a court rules that a religion and its religious beliefs can be over ruled by the state? What would be the difference if the opposite were to occur, say the introduction of “sharia law” as an alternate to the laws of the land?

          What would you think if you happened to venture into a “sharia zone” and been found to violate islamic law? What if the bill of rights can not be legitimately used to save your rear end? This is happening in many places throughout western culture and this is the ultimate goal of those advocates of RELIGIOUS LAW known as sharia law here within The Republic.

          Pay heed to what Sonny s mom wrote above, it would serve you and everyone very well…

          Sonnys_Mom Jeff Jankowiak • 17 hours ago

          As David Horowitz wrote: ‘An SDS radical once wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” ‘ Always about the next power grab, but carefully presented as an issue of charity or religion or freedom– whatever appeals to naive, low-information citizens who don’t understand the back-story and haven’t read After the Ball…

        • tagalog

          Of course a store can discriminate against someone who’s not wearing a shirt. Is there any record of a public-accommodations-discrimination lawsuit over this issue?

    • AnyGivenSaturday

      “The problem with all of your examples is that each “victim” that was forced to participate at a gay even runs a business and businesses cannot discriminate or they will face jail time. It was part of the Jim Crow laws that a business didn’t have to provide services due to an individual’s race. That was outlawed and now no business can choose not to provide services to anyone for any reason.

      Businesses can have their own beliefs as long as no one is being
      discriminated against for any reason and declining services for a
      specific reason such as being gay, black, muslim, or Canadian is
      illegal.”

      The problem with your argument is by taking a religious neutral generality. If someone walks into your store and wants to purchase a bottle of water or a newspaper, there is no religious conflict. The constitutional protections come into play when the desired purchase requires the business owner to promote and participate in an event that violates his religious beliefs.

    • ajr86

      Religious businesses would be happy to cater a gay persons birthday party or graduation. They just don’t want to have any part in the perversion of marriage. Religious people should have every right to refuse to participate in the mockery of marriage.

  • tagalog

    As our culture crumbles around us, it becomes clearer and clearer that the people who are responsible for the loss of our liberties are not the stereotyped groups to whom our attention has been called for the past century or so, but instead are those who have claimed to be liberty’s faithful champions and who are now the champions of equality of result over liberty.

    They say it’s the “fascists,” but it’s really the leftists.

    • kikorikid

      It IS the Leftist whose fascist tendencies are coming
      to the fore. It is now beyond the intellectual fascism
      of political correctness.

  • Sonnys_Mom

    In the 2007 Parker decision, federal Judge Mark Wolf (MA 1st Circuit) ‘made the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children
    is “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become
    engaged and productive citizens in our democracy”.’
    “http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/motion_to_dismiss_2007/hearing_020707/hearing_dismissed.html

  • seewithyourowneyes

    If the Christian bakers can refuse gay customers, can Muslim cabbies refuse gays? Can Mulsim cabbies refuse women in short-sleeves, women unaccompanied by a male guardian, or infidels eating ham sandwiches? We forget that some unreasonable religions create a loophole so large it swallows up the rest of our Bill of Rights.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They already do and the same liberals who push gay marriage support them.

      • seewithyourowneyes

        Even a child can see that the Left’s “big tent” is just a big lie. The only thing that unites them is hatred of the West.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Indeed. They’re a “revolutionary” loot and plunder and takeover movement.

      • Michael Polson

        100% incorrect.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Remind me who keeps denouncing every anti-Sharia bill? It isn’t conservatives.

      • Renitent

        But should Muslims(or anyone else) be able to refuse them because of the First Amendment?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          If they own their own businesses, yes. If they work for someone else, then their employers should be able to fire them.

          That’s how a free country works.

          • Renitent

            Agree with you but i’m afraid that no politician would dare to defend the right to discriminate unequivocally.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            With taxis it also depends on how routes are assigned. If the routes are limited to authorized cars, it becomes a public accommodation.

            The baker and photographer have much better arguments for refusing service than most cab drivers do

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Yes, if Muslims have the right to reject passengers, then any exclusivity needs to be lifted to allow any qualified livery service to compete

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t think Muslims have special or any rights to do that. Not if they work routes that are regulated like in and around airports, etc.

          • laura r

            well put. they should not work for a major taxi comp. if they are independent they should have a sign outside the cab. (no dogs, etc)

  • ajr86

    GOV BREWER SIGN THE BILL!!
    Religious freedom trumps perverts.

  • Jakareh

    I once met an individual who said no white person should be able to marry another white person so that the white race would go extinct as soon as possible. Should that individual under any circumstance be forced to take part in a white-to-white wedding? Absolutely not. Likewise, should someone who doesn’t believe “gay” weddings have any value or validity—whether it’s a religious or a personal belief—ever be forced to take part in a “gay” wedding? Absolutely not.

  • Aurelius

    This story, and others like it, is why I sometimes use the term, “Gay Mafia.”

  • Smoking Hamster

    My primary objection to Jim Crow was that it was forced discrimination. The state was stepping in and saying “segregation was good and you must comply or we will break you.” I would despise being a business owner back then because I view racism as a sin.

  • uptownsteve

    Baking a cake is not participating in a religious ceremony. What if the baker was an anti-semite and refused to bake a cake for Jews? Discrimination? If not, why not?

    • Habbgun

      Hey Caika,, I’d want a kosher cake …even if I didn’t want a kosher cake I would be happy to find someone who would want my business. This is custom stuff. Not peas in a can and actually I’m more pissed off at the libertarians who said religion would be respected. They lied also.

      • uptownsteve

        You didn’t answer the question. If a businessman refused to serve a customer because of their religious beliefs, is that or is that not discrimination?

        • Habbgun

          No it is not discrimination. Religious belief is a freedom issue and trumps what somebody arbitrarily believes they are entitled to. Sorry to say trying to stick it to believers is just petty.

          • uptownsteve

            Are you actually saying that, for instance, an evangelical Christian businessman is entitled to refuse to serve Jews if he chooses not to?

          • Habbgun

            100%……screw him…..and by the way most evangelicals are pro-Israel….it is the Left that is anti-Jewish….screw the democratic party also. It is only good for Caikas like you.

            More importantly we are not talking about a prejudice. We are talking about a religious belief that predated the establishment of the United States. I would never force someone to work on their sabbath those I’ve met who do tend to be Leftists. You wouldn’t care about someone’s religious beliefs would you???????

          • uptownsteve

            You’re an idiot. If the left is anti-Jewish then why are most Jews liberals? And the fulcrum of anti-semitism has always come from the right.

          • Habbgun

            Actually Jews are moving to the right. Maybe you’ve noticed. You sure seem to hate that. No my little black red diaper baby antisemitism is an equal opportunity employer. By the way you conveniently dodged my question. Would you force someone to work on their Sabbath? Most Leftists would.

          • uptownsteve

            Let’s see some hard evidence of the Jewish community at large moving to the right. You have ONE elected Republican Jew at the national level. Obama got in excess of 70% of the Jewish vote.

          • Habbgun

            Ummmm…..no. Orthodox Jews are the fastest growing part of the Jewish population and they will soon be greater than the secular Jewish population (what’s left of it)….Orthodox Jews skew right. Sorry that is your future reality….By the way you haven’t answered my question….not that I don’t know the answer to it. ROFLMAO at the red diaper baby….

          • uptownsteve

            Let’s see the evidence. Take all the time you need.

          • Habbgun

            Oh really….you do know NYC gerrymandered out a whole section of
            Orthodox Brooklyn and Russian Jews who vote right wing. By the way
            answer my question. Would you force someone to work on their Sabbath?
            The silence is rather telling.

          • uptownsteve

            No, I would not force someone to work on the Sabbath. So you’re saying there is a district in NYC that votes rightwing? What is it? Who is the City Councilman, assemplymen, State Senator and US Rep?

          • Habbgun

            See here…this site skews left….http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/151834/bill-de-blasios-trouble-with-the-jewish-vote

            They do say its issues based objections but the truth is Russian Jews in Brighton and Sheepshead go right because the hated the Soviet Union. Like Cubans, people have lived under the Leftists hate the Leftists. Also Orthodox Jewish sections more likely to go right.

          • laura r

            you cant force to religious christian/muslim/jew to deal w/a gay wedding.

          • Daniel Greenfield
          • laura r

            the orthodox population has exploded, they have amy children. the secular jews are inter marrying. guess a black kid knows more about jews, right? answer the question, would you sue if they wont work on sabbath? scared?

          • Habbgun

            Old farts…who vote Democratic no matter what. I’m talking about a cultural change that you aren’t in a position to see but I am. Sorry to break your heart. Red diaper babies grow up to be very bitter adults.

          • laura r

            correct, they are changing. moving to the right of center. this is just a kid who thinks hes a know it all.

          • laura r

            answer about the sabbath. would you sue? do tell.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Conservative Jews are not welcome by leftists of any stripe. Most of them feel compelled to flee to Israel thanks to fascists like you.

          • laura r

            2 reasons. they were liberal in the old days before the progressives came into action. the younger ones are self hating jews, influenced by the college/hollywood.

          • tagalog

            You’re very free with the insults, particularly the “idiot/moron” one; if I were you, I’d try to keep in mind that the people who post are often quite bright, and your words might come back to haunt you.

            But of course I’m not you, and no doubt each of us is equally relieved that that is true.

          • Western Canadian

            Your reference to the ‘fulcrum’ is both gibberish, and wrong. But then, being a product of a corrupt ‘education’ system, you know nothing about national or international socialism….

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re an idiot. If the left is anti-Jewish then why are most Jews liberals?”

            Most Jews are liberal? Most whites are liberal. Why do you hate them?

            “And the fulcrum of anti-semitism has always come from the right.”

            Not in America. Only from the right side of corrupt regimes.

          • Omar

            There is nothing liberal about you people. You leftists hijacked the term “liberal” in order to try and present yourselves as reasonable when it is obvious that you are not. By the way, most anti-Semites in history and today are on the left. Real liberals believe in the ideologies of people like John Locke and Adam Smith, not people like Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton. Fact-check, you loon.

          • laura r

            im jewish, & thats ok w/me. i dont give a xxxx. most jews dont live around those people. if they do, they dont wear stars or whatever. they rarely push the envelope, they are not black.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Angry “blacks” don’t often realize that their behavioral tendencies and values come from culture. And they’re raised to consider their anger to be valid until proved otherwise. Or always valid when directed at class enemies.

          • Western Canadian

            And how or why would he know they were jewish?? Unless you are implying that all jews have big hooked noses?? Oh wait, you probably are….

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Are you actually saying that, for instance, an evangelical Christian businessman is entitled to refuse to serve Jews if he chooses not to?”

            Some times yes and some times no.

          • Cory Liberty

            This is a great example of the left Ideology on Christians. The truth is there is no place for a self-righteous, arrogant attitude on the part of those who but for the grace of God would be just as guilty of sins as those we are trying to reach! Otherwise, we sin at the same time we are trying to lead others out of sin. The bakery served gays daily and no problems with it. It was taking part in a wedding ceremony under Christianity is a sin. A gay union is not a marriage in God’s eyes. God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman for a lifetime; to take that holy and blessed union and link it to something God declares to be unholy cannot be excepted as a Christian. We have no hate and only love for the Jews.

        • laura r

          a small business can refuse service. a corporation no. it is unneccessary for the business to give a reason. all they can say is the bakery is booked. any small business can pick & choose their clientele.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “You didn’t answer the question. If a businessman refused to serve a customer because of their religious beliefs, is that or is that not discrimination?”

          The question is not whether it is discrimination but whether it is lawful and or immoral.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Baking a cake is not participating in a religious ceremony. ”

      Baking a cake is not participating in your religious ceremony.

      “What if the baker was an anti-semite and refused to bake a cake for Jews?”

      Jews and gays and NRA members can have their cakes. But there are limits to product design determined by the designer.

  • uptownsteve

    Another reason why I say that any black who aligns themselves with the rightwing is an utter fool. Conservatism essentially is about the right to hate and to act out on that hate unchallenged.

    • AnyGivenSaturday

      “Another reason why I say that any black who aligns themselves with the rightwing is an utter fool. Conservatism essentially is about the right to hate and to act out on that hate unchallenged.”

      Your racist remark and false accusation of “hate” by those who oppose gay marriage is misguided. You don’t want to consider that it’s opposed simply out of what others (i.e. states) feel is appropriate (or inappropriate) for their population, not due to any “hatred. For someone who accuses others of hatred, you seem to harbor a great deal of it toward those who disagree with you.

    • Western Canadian

      For anyone who has not noticed onwelfaresteve’s ignorant, hate filled and bigoted posts before, yes, he is a troll. Incapable of arguing, he rants. Ignorant, he lies. He is the most pathetic poster/troll on FPM.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        I wouldn’t go that far. There’s quite a pathetic troll competition underway here.

    • Drakken

      So what your saying is, you hate white people, how quaint.

  • truebearing

    Naturally you would parrot the ACLU’s spin, but the ACLU isn’t addressing the conflicting 1st amendment rights of the shop owner who believes homosexuality is a sin. His religious beliefs are being subordinated to the rights of someone who wants a wedding cake. Since you, nor the ACLU, have provided an argument that shows a constitutional priority for the rights of homosexuals to force anyone to bake them wedding cakes, the 1st amendment rights of the baker are the only real rights in this debate.

    • hiernonymous

      “Naturally you would parrot the ACLU’s spin”

      Normally, one makes an accusation of “parroting” when someone offers as his own opinion that of another, or endorses another’s stance. I’m doing neither here; I’m simply offering a more complete view of the other side of the argument.

      As a matter of fact, while I think the ACLU paper raises some good points, I’m not completely convinced.

      “Since you, nor the ACLU, have provided an argument that shows a
      constitutional priority for the rights of homosexuals to force anyone to
      bake them wedding cakes, the 1st amendment rights of the baker are the
      only real rights in this debate.”

      You might be right there. As I said, while I think the ACLU paper raises some compelling points, I agree that there are some aspects to this that aren’t as obvious or simple as the ACLU implies. I’m generally unimpressed by “it’s against my religion arguments” when it comes to access to services offered to all, but I agree that when it comes to compelling artists to produce art, the situation isn’t quite as plain.

      A couple years back, I related, in more detail, the experiences of two of my soldiers I sent to West Virginia to visit the hospital where one of my troops was being treated following an auto accident. The senior of the two was a black sergeant first class; the junior was a white specialist. They stopped at a diner to get a bite to eat en route. The sergeant asked the waitress for a piece of pie. “Ain’t got none.” “No, I mean a piece of that pie, under the cover, right there.” “Ain’t got none.”

      That’s an example of the sort of discrimination that I think it’s right to fight against, whether the prejudice exhibited is based on race, gender, sexual orientation, whatever. The pie has been baked, it’s a standard service available to anyone.

      On the other hand, I can see some merit to the argument that it’s a different case if you demand that the diner produce a specialty pie to the buyer’s specification. I think that there are arguments to be made both ways, and I’ve not yet reached a conclusion personally.

      But you’re not going to reach a good, reasoned, conclusion by presenting only caricatures of the opposing arguments. It’s best if both sides are heard in good faith.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The best way to fight against that discrimination is not to patronize that store and to tell others not to do so either.

  • laura r

    WRONG. a small business can choose its clientele. in NYC resturants refuse many people who may nt be dressed properly or they just dont fit in. the excuse is that its resevations only. if you are let in, they seat you where ever @ their decretion. there’s one place i go too who does let everyone in. hey are very strict on where they are seated. the owner is the editor of a magazine, its not macdonalds. this is only one out of 100s of examples.

  • laura r

    THEY can call it what they want. legally it should be called a “partnership”. they should have all the protections of a straight marriage. unfortunaty its not enough, it seems its never enough these days. i have gay friends, they think its ridiculous.

    • AnyGivenSaturday

      “they should have all the protections of a straight marriage.”

      What does that do to the value of straight marriage if the only difference is the vocabulary? You’re also forgetting once they have a stepping stone as a precedent for advancing their status, it’s inevitable they’ll gear up for another round of grievances and demands to be granted the final step to marriage. Much like illegal immigrants seeking amnesty first and citizenship second, they will seek to complete the task under the guise of suffering as “second class” people.

    • bob smith

      true enough and on second thought, yes, partnership is much more accurate a description.

  • laura r

    i know gay men who have been together for 50 years. they deserve legal protection w/their property, hospital visits etc. its a partnership in my eyes. they can send out annoucements & call it marriage. have a cake what ever. problem is the radicals wont meet us in the middle.

  • laura r

    better dont ask dont tell. its called we dont owe an explaination, we are busy. done.

  • Grace M

    All they wanted was a wedding cake and im sure the fuck head of an owner was rude and denied them in an unhumane way.

    • Grace Martinez

      And you don’t see gays protesting religion; you stupid fuck!

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Well you’re certainly polite.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      You have divine powers?

  • JeffreyRO55

    Religionists will have to answer to God for their hatreds and prejudices. I’ll leave it at that!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Then why not put your faith in G-d and let Him take care of it?

  • De Doc

    One could say these refusals to do business as bad for the businesses in question. Their loss in my opinion, but I firmly oppose the government trying to force people into what amounts to voluntary contracts.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    If you don’t mind, I’d like to challenge your objectivity by asking how you would defend the Christian baker if it was your fiduciary duty to do so.

    • hiernonymous

      I’m not sure. One of the reasons I haven’t actually staked out a position on this is that I don’t know that I understand the law well enough to see all the ins and outs.

      It’s not an unreasonable question, though, so I won’t dodge it:

      One approach might be along this line: “The baker is willing to provide his services to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. His service consists of providing a cake decorated with art from a specific menu of options. He will sell the same product and offer the same range of services to any customer. It is unreasonable to demand that he expand his line of services, or create new artwork, on demand.”

      I’m assuming that this is fairly accurate description of what happened; that what he refused to provide was something along the lines of a portrayal of two brides or two grooms. This argument doesn’t hold up as well if what he refused was, for example, to simply write out words of the customers’ choice.

      Another line of defense – and I’m on thin ice with this one, in that I’m talking about a subject I’m certainly not expert on – is that “sexual orientation is not protected to the same extent as race; until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, arguments by analogy to 1960′s Civil Rights decisions rest on a faulty premise.” That argument represents the impression I’m left with after reading the ACLU paper, but I don’t know it to be correct.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “One approach might be along this line: “The baker is willing to provide his services to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. His service consists of providing a cake decorated with art from a specific menu of options. He will sell the same product and offer the same range of services to any customer. It is unreasonable to demand that he expand his line of services, or create new artwork, on demand.””

        Excellent. This is the foundation for where the lines should be drawn.

        “I’m assuming that this is fairly accurate description of what happened; that what he refused to provide was something along the lines of a portrayal of two brides or two grooms. This argument doesn’t hold up as well if what he refused was, for example, to simply write out words of the customers’ choice.”

        I agree, if that’s the only modification. I’m not even trying to argue the case again but to draw clear lines that protect all parties reasonably and according to the US constitution.

        “sexual orientation is not protected to the same extent as race; until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, arguments by analogy to 1960′s Civil Rights decisions rest on a faulty premise.”

        That doesn’t work very well as a foundational argument but in some cases in might be a good reply depending on the opposition arguments.

        I think also what happens is that people react before they step through the negotiation process and fear takes over. If we have clearly defined lines people will be more comfortable with those conversations after they know what their various protections are.

        And I don’t think any of this violates the rights of any “protected classes” that tend to organize themselves politically. It’s a fair and reasonable compromise all things considered.

  • Paul

    Gay marriage will not destroy the freedom of worship. This article is bunk.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Tell it to the victims of gay marriage

      • hiernonymous

        Who are they?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Anyone being threatened with prison and/or fines for not participating in a gay marriage.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          I think it’s fair to say that a few people have been clobbered because of these unresolved issues.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    Okay.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    The laws already protect freedom of conscience.

    • Jeff Jankowiak

      It sure does…but there are limitations to how your can wield your conscience.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Are there limitations to what gay rights activists can demand?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Are there limitations to what gay rights activists can demand?

        • Jeff Jankowiak

          Yes there are many limitations on what can be demanded. But clearly you think your religious rights can go right into peoples bedrooms and bodies.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Have I said that police should invade your bedroom?

            You on the other hand insist on imposing your religious beliefs on bakers and photographers.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            Sorry police have invaded the bedroom. That is the Bowers v. Hardwick case. I am giving you the wiki version for easier reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The reason of the police for entering the house was not homosexuality.

          • Jeff Jankowiak

            I know but that did not stop them from charging them with sodomy. That’s where the civil rights issue came up.

    • Jeff Jankowiak

      Not if they freedom of conscience discriminates against a protected minority.

  • Cory Liberty

    This is a great example of the left Ideology on Christians. The truth is there is no place for a self-righteous, arrogant attitude on the part of those who but for the grace of God would be just as guilty of sins as those we are trying to reach! Otherwise, we sin at the same time we are trying to lead others out of sin. The bakery served gays daily and no problems with it. It was taking part in a wedding ceremony under Christianity. A gay union is not a marriage in God’s eyes. God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman for a lifetime; to take that holy and blessed union and link it to something God declares to be unholy cannot be excepted as a Christian. That’s like making a vegan kill and eat steak. We need sanctions to protect religious liberty. Why do I need to leave my 1st amendment rights at the door as I head to work?

  • dentec

    Business owners already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason , you don’t have to give a reason ! giving a reason is only going to cause “You” problems, Personally I think everyone’s money is green, I don’t have to agree with someone to work for them, I don’t have to believe what they believe, I am also Not Their Judge ! the constitution states ” congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ” 1st amendment. In this case what your personal , specifically “Religious” beliefs are can not make Law ! You can refuse anyone you want but you can’t make it a Law, If you want a Law change the Constitution ! I do see some of the Law suits as ridiculous, but without studying all of the facts of each case one should hesitate to make a decision based on what little information we get , as it is very agenda driven. I would like to see the passage in your Bible ” as I’m sure that is what all this is based on ” That says You should Judge anyone ! I’m confident it says “Love one another”,” Judge Not Least you be Judged” , I would like to see the passage that says refuse service to those you don’t agree with.Yes it says Man shall not lie with Man, what does it say about Women ? Transsexuals ? Bisexuals ? Hermaphrodites ? Asexual “no sex organs” most of these people where born that way as your God chose them to be, Your God is also the one that gets to Judge according to the Bible.Further I’ve Read nowhere in the Bible were Jesus said to hate anyone, pretty sure he said Forgive them and Love them.

  • Maggie

    “The liberal Constitution is a very strange place. There’s no Freedom of Religion in it” Daniel Greenfield

  • chelmer

    At the obvious risk of being branded as a racist (but who isn’t?), I want to point out that this red line was trampled decades ago when people who rented houses or owned restaurants were forced to serve blacks. As ugly as racism is, denying people the right to do what they want to do with their lives and property is uglier: no one has a “right” that depends on taking a right away from someone else. In the name of the vaunted principle “the ends justify the means”, racists were steamrolled in the name of the Higher Good. Once you can be forced to provide service to someone in order to lessen the impact of something detestable like racism, then you can be forced to provide services even when the “victims” are people violating your basic moral creeds. Then governance becomes the exercise of raw power and the emotions of the mob. Welcome to 2014.

  • Sheryl Clyde

    Places of business to the public have no right to religious freedom the same way a church or a individual does. The first Amendment protects churches and individuals from government interference. Corporations are not people or churches and do not have the same rights.