• Source: Screenshot
  • GoFundMe Cancels Sweet Cakes By Melissa Fundraising Campaign, Bakers Blame 'Satan'

    The owners of a bakery found guilty of anti-gay discrimination have had their fundraising campaign canceled, and believe the devil is behind it.

    Friday, after nearly two years in court, an Oregon judge recommended Aaron and Melissa Klein be fined $135,000 for discriminating against a same-sex couple. The Kleins, who own Sweet Cakes by Melissa, had refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple.

    On their Facebook page yesterday, the Kleins posted a link to a GoFundMe fundraising campaign set up for them. In just four hours it had reached over $20,000. It quickly increased to a reported $109,000 before GoFundMe canceled it.

    Why?

    GoFundMe says it does not allow money to be raised on their site for people who have been found to be in violation of the law.

    "After careful review by our team, we have found the 'Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa' campaign to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions," GoFundMe said in a statement. 

    "The money raised thus far will still be made available for withdrawal. While a different campaign was recently permitted for a pizzeria in Indiana, no laws were violated and the campaign remained live. However, the subjects of the 'Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa' campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled."

    Upon learning the news, the Kleins took to their Facebook page again.

    "Evidently Go fund me has shut down our Go fund me page and will not let us raise any money. Satan's really at work but I know our God has a plan and wins in the end!"

    1.jpg

    One Facebook commenter left this insightful message in response:

    2.jpg

    And another made an excellent suggestion:

    3.jpg

    Get weekly news & updates
    Subscribe
    Support our work DONATE



    Register to VOTE

    Showing 191 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2015-12-30 01:10:09 -0500
      These people got sued not because they refused, but after they refused and the couple started to complain the bakers posted their information online, and their supporters started to harass and alienate the gay couple!!!
      Get your fucking facts straight people!

    • commented 2015-07-15 20:15:11 -0400
      The “real” bigots. My AutoCorrect is crazy.

    • commented 2015-07-15 20:14:38 -0400
      When all else fails, call the gays “traitors”, and “un-american”, and call your critics the “real” tickets.

    • commented 2015-07-15 19:49:23 -0400
      @elisabeth! how dare you say that about peter and me! who the hell do you think you are saying something despicable like that? in a court room, that would be called ‘knowing the operation of one’s mind.’ that would be dismissed unless you are an expert witness WITH degrees. you don’t have any degrees or plaques on your wall to tell us what our state of mind is. you don’t like the law! period. you can’t handle the law, and you have pulled every straw there is to justify your believes. it’s not going to work. one day, it will sink in, and and until you do, it will always hit you in the face! i ask you to cease and desist you comments, otherwise, it can be construed as harassment. your comments have turned into trolling, and peter and i have been just cajoling you into this conversation ad nauseous. i will end this by saying ‘PEACE’! good day, madam!

    • commented 2015-07-15 19:42:30 -0400
      You two have absolutely no interest in hearing anyone else’s perspective yet you keep trying to rope me in under the guise that you genuinely want to hear my responses. You then proceed to rip at me personally continually distorting just about everything that I say whereas the other parts you ignore every other relevant point that I brought up. Whatevs. I’m not surprised. I had grown hopeful that either of you might be open to respecting another perspective but apparently you are incapable of the slightest form of that.

      Sorry, Peter. I got through the first few lines of your last post and it hit me for the last time that you are the bigot who is full of hate and loathing for anyone who disagrees with you. I’ve got children to care for and a life to lead.

      I’ll be unfollowing this post from further criticisms though I will continue to allow you your freedoms though you won’t return the favor. Also, I will continue to support good people like the Kleins who are taken down with the utmost prejudice by the most intolerant of us all..

    • commented 2015-07-15 19:17:29 -0400
      @tom…hahah, no problem Tom! I discovered it quite by accident; I was putting stars around some word to emphasize it, and it showed up bold when the comment posted.

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:49:00 -0400
      @peter! wow! thanks, peter! you taught me something!

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:47:09 -0400
      Tom… if you put a star (*) around text, it will appear as bold. It’s an easy way of quoting someone.

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:45:53 -0400
      interesting! why do some words end up in BOLD FONT instead of regular font?

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:45:15 -0400
      were you ‘miffed’ when inter-racial marriage was allowed. in actuality, elisabeth, straights redefined marriage way before the sexual revolution. as i quoted earlier from Justice Sotomayor: ‘…Mr. Bursch said the institution of marriage was under siege, and that births out of wedlock had grown rapidly since 1970. Justice Sotomayor said the change was not because of “the recent gay marriages,” a point Mr. Bursch acknowledged.’ the demise of marriage was already in practice long before the sexual revolution. straights said that a piece of paper — the marriage certificate — was NOT NECESSARY, because it didn’t DEFINE (oops, that word again!) marriage. instead, it heralded in ‘common law,’ thereby having free sex outside of marriage, including children born out of wedlock — they call them bastards. so gays have nothing to do with it. you guys did.

      it’s part of life now — reality.

      there are far more important things to dwell on in the world!

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:39:48 -0400
      @elisabeth said…..“I don’t care what other churches are doing”

      So you have no empathy? Do you value the sacraments churches in America and that their freedoms are protected?

      “What they choose to recognize as sacred or define as a marriage is not what has held through the test of time”

      BZZZZZZZ…. does not matter! It’s a religious belief, and it is held as equal in this country, thus it’s a valid, sacred marriage.

      “it will NEVER be an equal marriage in historical significance of why the marital bond was created.”

      Silly Elisabeth. It already is.

      ““marrying” gays will still never be marriage. I know, I know. Legal documents now say otherwise. Legal documents also said it was ok to own slaves and discriminate against races.”

      No, Elisabeth. PEOPLE say otherwise. Churches say otherwise.

      “it is what it is. anything else, is tantamount to treason and un-American.”

      BAAHAHAAHAHAH. Back to the bigoted speech. Gays are treasonous and un-American. Well, i’d spend every waking minute and energy fighting to persecute them if I were you. Treason can never be tolerated. Get to work.

      “laws are made now generally according to agendas.”

      Like the Hobby Lobby decision?

      “The gay agenda has vehemently pushed full force for the right to supersede the rights of others in favor of their own.”

      Gays marrying doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. It just offends some people. Frowny-face.

      “Which is why I choose to discuss the topic of gay marriage with you from a logistical standpoint steeped in historical origins rather than according to the whims of states or governments.”

      The government didn’t define marriage for gays. It found that States do not have a compelling reason to prohibit gays from marrying or to prohibit recognizing gay marriages. This is a logistical standpoint steeped in historical origins. You do understand that this is history being made. We’re living it.

      “the Kleins would still serve the lesbians any confections that they perosnally desired at that point in time, aside from the cake.”

      The “aside from” is the discrimination. Businesses can’t do that.

      “What I did ask was why gays sought to change the definition (as it has always been)”

      No it hasn’t, buddy.

      “instead of be joined lawfully (and religiously if they so desire)”

      Either way, the State must recognize it as equal, and offer the same protections it would offer anyone else. And that’s what happened here.

      THAT is what I believe has other Christians so miffed, myself included. when someone decides to usurp and overpower something that has always been for their own agenda”

      Sorry you’re miffed. You’re not protected from being offended. Only from being discriminated against. You are now equal to gays, and not privileged. I think that’s really what’s got your craw.

      “They can make it legal, but they can’t make that morally right.”

      No one can make anything morally right. Things are morally right when they benefit humanity and humanity’s well-being. If a thing harms humanity or threatens humanity’s well-being, it’s not moral. If it does neither, it’s amoral and not relevant.

      “(and since when to Christians of differing faiths get together and decide to agree to view things the exact same way?)”

      !!!!!!! I think you’ve stumbled upon the real problem in relying on faith to determine moral propriety. :-)

      “When have I ONCE ever said that gays do not deserve to have equal rights and equal unions???”

      You think true traitors of the United States Of America should have equal rights?

      “they can select their own form of union and have ALL the same rights.”

      And now they do.

      “I’m just saying it is NO ONE’s right to infringe on them in favor of their own.”

      I am sincerely glad you were able to express your empathy and your understanding of others. And I agree with you here. But gays aren’t infringing on people’s rights by getting married. They’re just offending your faith. And your faith doesn’t allow you to break the law. (Remember.. that question that you avoided? Can you murder someone for your faith and not be punished?)

      “I am just pissed that my fellow gay man decided that he got to take from others and make it his own when all things being equal- it has never been open to re-definition for the sake of agenda”

      You still don’t get it. It’s not a redefinition. It’s another definition that doesn’t agree with yours. The State can’t prefer one definition over another, and it most certainly can’t prefer a definition that is exclusionary and prevents equality.

      You, and your church, still get to define marriage any way you see fit, and your church may refuse to marry gays. You just can’t, in commerce, treat some people one way and treat others another way, no matter if your faith teaches it. And that goes for all faiths, thus the law is being applied equally.

      " It was created with no other purpose in mind except to define the marital bond between heterosexuals and thereby is sacred to them (no religious aspect applied to this whatsoever, which is where I think you keep losing me. ‘Sacred’ doesn’t imply automatic religious backing. I hold my relationship to my children and husband sacred and would whether I were athiest or Christian or undecided)."

      Oh? Then WHO created it? And if the answer is “humans”, then we have every right to change. Why wouldn’t we?

      “On a personal level, I’ve dealt with struggles that led me to ideas of suicide at one point in time and occasionally still pop up. Issues that I’ve had to keep private even from my closest friends because society is not as accepting of them as it is with things such as gay marriage even now.”

      I am truly sorry you suffered. Do you think you would have been harmed less if your closest friends were able to help you? Do you think you would have been harmed less if society accepted your problems and helped you?

      EVERYONE deserves to be treated fairly.”

      And now gays are too. Their unions are recognized as equal to yours. Fair.

      “We do not need the law to dictate to us what is fair on a very basic human level, especially when it comes to unique situations like this”

      We need the law when we disagree, as in unique situations like this.

      “Fairness is NOT what happened in the case with the Kleins”

      You still haven’t demonstrated why it’s unfair, except that it offends you.

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:36:10 -0400
      And we are back to exactly where we started….Peace be with you, Tom. Gotta get back to life…

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:32:40 -0400
      @elisabeth! my priest says that in mass, both in Latin, which i prefer, and in English. ‘Peace be with you,’ and we reply, ‘and with your spirit" in Latin, it can be "Pax vobiscum’ reply ‘Et cum spiritu tuo.’ or ‘Dominos vobiscum (the Lord be with you) ’Et cum spiritu tuo’! * he also says the last word — the whole mass, we say nothing but responses. i say that to everyone.

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:27:17 -0400
      Tom- Good gravy. You keep calling for peace? but ONLY after you’ve had YOUR say. I keep laughing at that – how dismissive and condescending of views different from YOUR own.

      AGAIN, no one is infringing ANY-damn-THING on anyone else in the businessplace. They are NOT going out threatening others to abide by their religious beliefs. Good Lord, man.

      And let me just tell you – you would NOT be sued by me for bringing Catholicism into the workplace. Even if you did it forcefully, rudely, abrasively, and any other -ly. I don’t give a flying crap about someone choosing to express their beliefs anywhere but that is just me. I allow people true freedom in their lives as long as it doesn’t impose on mine with physical danger or some other vast threatening intrusion. That is NOT what the Kleins did. I repeat.

      You’ve known from the beginning my stance and yet you continue to provoke and ask me to explain it in 100 different ways so that YOU can disagree with me 100 different times. So, no more conversation? Then quit eliciting it when you know the inevitable outcome each and every time. Oh My Word!

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:24:51 -0400
      @elisabeth! ha! i like the way you spelled my name — interesting! and you’re correct. you can have beliefs and opinion, but that’s as far as it goes. those beliefs and opinions cannot trespass into business world when it coms to religion. they must remain in the confines of the church.

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:17:13 -0400
      Tome, I’m not disputing that gay partners have been treated unfairly by the laws of the time. Laws treat many unfairly, as is the case of the Kleins.

      I am disputing that you think others not agreeing with the SCOTUS ruling (according to your reasoning as to why you believe they are not, ie bigots) is an act of treason. If that were the case, then the gays lobbying for marriage equality up to this point would be treasonous because it was not law at the time and they were disgruntled about that. Un-American would be having your point of view stifled by the government in favor for that of others. that is why we have the Constitution and rights to free speech. We are free to express our distaste in how things are run and seek to change them. FREE….or at least we are supposed to be.

      As I have said going on about 20+ times now, my personal religious beliefs are separate from the logic I’ve been applying in all discussions up to now. Marital bonds have never been beholden to any one religion or group. There is no ONE religion who is seeking to deny freedom to others in this country. The Christian religion accounts for more than 75% of our population in one way or another. But, as Peter brought into the conversation before, many Christians are also on board with gay marriage. Yet, Christians are still majorally blamed for the hate against and stifling of gay peoples. Regardless, religion left completely out of the equation, heterosexual marital bonds have made societies. Marriage encompasses ALL that heterosexual bonds are and has perpetuated the success of the human race and society to this day.

      Also, as stated before. Allowing another to abide by their sacred and religious beliefs in the business environment is not giving religious people carte blanche to do and say what they will to disparage others or force their beliefs onto others. I’ve known very few people who have ever attempted to do that to me in a business setting (not because a law said that they couldn’t but because they are CIVIL like that) and that is not what this is about though that is likely what the law is “protecting” others from. This situation was people being respectful to others different from they while trying to quietly maintain their decided religious obligations but still being ruined from it. (All while other businesses continue to operate and do the like under the protection of being Muslim, gay, or whatever else other than Christian. Yet here we still sit arguing the merits of this situation when it is already done. The family was ruined, threatened with deadly force and forced to abandon their hard working and moral livelihood at the hands of these lesbians. The lesbians were easily able to find another to fulfill their wedding cake request, have likely gone on to marry, and are what $100k+ richer? Seems just a little bit ridiculous, doesn’t it?)

      Whereas, England (as well as a great many other Countries in past AND present) imprisoned, tortured, harassed, and murdered people for speaking out against the religion of the land. That is NOT what is going on here nor has ever been going on in America.

    • commented 2015-07-15 18:07:02 -0400
      @elisabeth! you’re quote in the last post: ‘… that I also allow them the freedom to decide what their religious beliefs are and to act accordingly. ABSOLUTELY NOT! therein lies problem. they CANNOT! they CANNOT take that belief and infringe it on others in their business. PERIOD. it must remain in the confines of their boundaries of the church. it must remain, as you said to ’act accordingly’ ONLY within the confines of the mindset though activities of being one with Christ WHILE remaining silent unto themselves. it CANNOT be brought into the business community and pushed on others. that is where church and state comes in. may i ask you to Google marriage throughout history? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) * then you’ll have to go to England as in days of old and live under one denomination. that way, you can push the same belief on others because you all believe in the same. if not, you would be considered a heretic and punished accordingly. our Constitution is based on EQUALITY. freedom of religion means just that — to have as many denominations as you want without the gov’t saying you can’t. look, this topic has been worse than beating a dead horse. it is what it is. anything else, is tantamount to treason and un-American. if i may go one step further. you know that i am Catholic. how about if i have a business and bring my Catholicism into the business. i would be sued for everything i had. religious beliefs cannot trespass civil law. i don’t like women whose breasts are exposed and skirts & dresses above the knee. who in the hell do i think i am for entering the work force and start dictating to my boss i don’t like my co-workers who dress like that, OR have a business where i won’t serve you otherwise because it’s against my ‘Catholic’ beliefs? it’s outrageous! peace! no more conversation, please!

    • commented 2015-07-15 17:50:18 -0400
      Peter, I’ll state it again. I don’t care what other churches are doing or what laws are made. I have told you that, while I would not have done what the Kleins did, that I also allow them the freedom to decide what their religious beliefs are and to act accordingly. This applies to any church who decides to marry a gay couple, Christian or not. What they choose to recognize as sacred or define as a marriage is not what has held through the test of time. They too can call it what they will, but it will NEVER be an equal marriage in historical significance of why the marital bond was created. It has become a show horse, but “marrying” gays will still never be marriage. I know, I know. Legal documents now say otherwise. Legal documents also said it was ok to own slaves and discriminate against races. I think I’ve made myself pretty clear up to this point in asserting that laws are made now generally according to agendas. The gay agenda has vehemently pushed full force for the right to supersede the rights of others in favor of their own. Now they have it, but it will still never be an equal marriage in the terms which I stated previously, nor does it answer the question of why they choose to marry in the first place. Which is why I choose to discuss the topic of gay marriage with you from a logistical standpoint steeped in historical origins rather than according to the whims of states or governments.

      The Kleins church/religion obviously would not marry gay couples, neither would mine. Though, I’m willing to bet, just like mine, that the Kleins church is also not opposed to them having equal rights (as evidenced by the fact that the Kleins would still serve the lesbians any confections that they perosnally desired at that point in time, aside from the cake.

      Different people (even within the same religion) hold differing religious beliefs. Christian or not. It is what they personally hold sacred to them personally that matters to them that should allow them to not be forced or compelled to go against them in cases such as this- where no physical harm or otherwise mal intent was involved.

      Nevertheless, I was responding to your question about my personal beliefs on gay marriage which remain irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

      I never said that anyone was under any obligation to defer to my own religious views to make determinations for anything. I said that they were my own and allow others theirs. What I did ask was why gays sought to change the definition (as it has always been) of marriage instead of be joined lawfully (and religiously if they so desire) under some other union name of their choosing. THAT is what I believe has other Christians so miffed, myself included. when someone decides to usurp and overpower something that has always been for their own agenda. They can make it legal, but they can’t make that morally right. (and since when to Christians of differing faiths get together and decide to agree to view things the exact same way?)

      I find it incredibly condescending that you feel compelled to issue this challenge to me when I have been as clear as I can about my desires for every citizen to have equal rights to one another. When have I ONCE ever said that gays do not deserve to have equal rights and equal unions??? I have said time and time again that they can select their own form of union and have ALL the same rights. I have never been on board with stifling the equal desires of my fellow gay man. I truly empathize with the daily struggle that gay people have had when dealing with the government and being made to unfairly pay for what heterosexual couples received strictly because of their gender preference and subsequent denials for equal rights from the law. I have ALWAYS implied that the government should recognize everyone equally, affording all the SAME rights to all. I could care less what the state thinks about my religious beliefs or what I hold sacred. I’m just saying it is NO ONE’s right to infringe on them in favor of their own.

      I am just pissed that my fellow gay man decided that he got to take from others and make it his own when all things being equal- it has never been open to re-definition for the sake of agenda. It was created with no other purpose in mind except to define the marital bond between heterosexuals and thereby is sacred to them (no religious aspect applied to this whatsoever, which is where I think you keep losing me. ‘Sacred’ doesn’t imply automatic religious backing. I hold my relationship to my children and husband sacred and would whether I were athiest or Christian or undecided).

      I may have never had to suffer “consequences” of the gay lifestyle, but I have surely had to suffer consequences of the lifestyle I’ve chosen to live in my past and present and likely future as did my ancestors. Want to compare persecution-riddled pasts and deprivation of basic human rights? I can load you up with a truckfull, my friend. On a personal level, I’ve dealt with struggles that led me to ideas of suicide at one point in time and occasionally still pop up. Issues that I’ve had to keep private even from my closest friends because society is not as accepting of them as it is with things such as gay marriage even now. Don’t you dare condescend to me that you think I could come closer to understanding and love for my fellow men when you have misinterpreted me all along and readily assume I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn’t agree with my specific predilections, much less understand or know the true intentions of MY heart.

      I still hold true to what I stated about 100,000 words ago- EVERYONE deserves to be treated fairly. We do not need the law to dictate to us what is fair on a very basic human level, especially when it comes to unique situations like this. Fairness is NOT what happened in the case with the Kleins.

    • commented 2015-07-15 17:14:57 -0400
      @elisabeth! no! no! i know of many couples who have been together for many years and one partner died. the wills were not allowed be given accordingly because of the parents of the deceased won in court for the spoils, leaving nothing for the partner who lived. the same applied in hospitals — one partner sick,and because of laws, the doctors and hospitals were one, not allowed to give out any information except to the closed blood relative, and because of that alone, the people make it a point not to allow the live partner access to their life partner. if gays just went to push the law to allow that, that would be great, but because of the force of how those bigot and hypocrites pushed their lives on gays claiming they are NOT EQUAL at all, that was the impetus behind pushing for marriage equality. it’s the law of the land now, and people will just have to accept it. as the song says, ‘Let It Go.’ anything else would be considered un-American and tantamount to treason. the Constitution is based on EQUALITY, and freedom of religion has been taken so out of context to mean religious beliefs which are entirely to two different situations. the founding father left England who were under the rule of one religion. everything else would be considered heresy. now, enter the Constitution freedom of religion which means freedom to have as many religions/denominations as you want. your beliefs of that denomination must remained with the the boundaries of that church, and therein lies the problem the beliefs, tenets, and precepts of that particular religion are taken by its congregants and subject everyone else to live by that code, but woe be tied unto you if you turn it around to them. now enter separation of church and state. you cannot come into anything that is civil — your job, government, et all — and push those beliefs one another. that is not only un-American but tantamount to treason. that being the case, one should be back to England and live under their rule. i hope that helps for a better understand.

    • commented 2015-07-15 17:06:28 -0400
      @elisabeth said…“…..the dictates of why the marital bond was created in the first place.”

      Who dictated? What compels us to follow such a dictum?

    • commented 2015-07-15 17:00:01 -0400
      Tom- so you are telling me that gays wanted to be able to claim the title of marriage for legal issues only? And that if that were the case, which I don’t for one second believe it to be, then why could they not have achieved that legal right another way still under the name of Civil rights?

      I’ll beg to differ about your explanation for why religion is upset by the ruling. There were PLENTY of avenues that the LGBT movement could have taken to obtain complete equal rights to married couples. There is no such thing as marriage equality according to what I explained to you in my last post (religion aside). You can have equality in regards to the equal legal rights that a partnership of two people would necessitate, but it is logistically impossible for “marriage” equality to exist. Homosexual couples cannot biologically, naturally, accomplish what heterosexuals can according to the dictates of why the marital bond was created in the first place. Thus, all things are not logically equal and never could be. (Though gay couples are suing insurance companies for their inability to get pregnant after having the prescribed sex for a year, same as heterosexuals, and not being able to conceive. Gay couples will then conceivably be able to force their insurance companies to pay for their infertility through a surrogate because they are….wait for it…biologically incompatible. Go figure.)

    • commented 2015-07-15 16:49:35 -0400
      Excellent point, Tom. Elisabeth… the ruling of the Supreme Court did not define marriage for gays, or give gays the right to define marriage. It said that States had not provided a compelling reason why they would have an interest in denying gays the freedom to be recognized in their marriages.

      You see…,. what you’re forgetting is that churches all over the country,…Christian churches…. are marrying gays. They’re officiating weddings between gay couples. They’re sanctifying it, as a sacred institution. Under God.

      The Supreme Court understands that States can’t recognize only certain marriages but not others. That would be the finest, most pure and absolute example of a violation of the First Amendment. It’s the reason the First Amendment was written: to prevent the State from establishing one religion over another, and to protect all religions’ freedom. If a State gives imprimatur to one “sacred” marriage, and not others…. it violates the First Amendment. And that, Elisabeth, makes all of us less free.

      The State actually doesn’t care whether you consider your marriage ‘sacred’ or not It cannot legally take sides on what interpretations of “sacred” are valid and what aren’t, because that’s a religious question.

      So you will have to accept that there are religious institutions that sanctify gay marriages, and they are protected as anyone else’s is. HOW, then, do we protect the religious freedoms of individuals that recognize gay marriage as sanctified , and the religious freedoms of individuals that don’t recognize gay marriage as sanctified?

      Easy. We follow the first amendment, and prohibit the States from preferring one over another Ergo, they are equal in the eyes of the law (even if they’re not equal in your eyes), ergo they all deserve equal treatment. YOU may treat them differently, but the law will not take your side, or any side. It will only follow the letter of the law.

      I know you believe God’s law is above civil laws…. but that’s only based on your interpretation, and the government we have founded is one that doesn’t take sides on interpretations. You Christians will have to sort it out yourselves (if you’d like… you’re under no obligation to) and come to some agreed decision on what is sacred. But none of us are under any obligation to follow it.

      Now, some empathy practice: imagine your church officiates a marriage between you and your husband. It is absolutely precious to you, and a sacrament under God as you interpret it, and to that end it has more force of law and more value to you than anything you’ve ever known. And then the State comes along and tells you that it does not recognize the sanctity of your marriage, and will not offer the same protections of your rights under the law as it will the “TRUE Christians.”

      Thankfully we live in a better country than that. And if you’re able to take a moment to understand that millions of people had to suffer this (and you never did), you might come a little closer to understanding and love.

    • commented 2015-07-15 16:32:21 -0400
      @elisabeth! good morning! that, elisabeth, was the best question ever! in my humble opinion, your are correct. i believe that gays would have been very happy on that aspect and want of the passing of civil legalities and rights of straight marriage — The only reason for the ruling on same sex marriage is for civil issues. Like in a death of a partner who gets to say what happens to their belongings, or to be included on insurance for medical care things like that. It is by no means some ruling that supersedes any religious beliefs or practices. A church does not have to perform a marriage for it to be legal, not even when it comes to a man and a woman. Religion is just upset because it goes against their beliefs and practices that’s all. Separation between church and state (government) is for a reason, BUT because of the full force of the LBGT movement since 1969, was to go all the way — marriage equality!

    • commented 2015-07-15 16:25:41 -0400
      Before I answer that, Peter, tell me why you think I phrased it that way, or rather, answer a few things first.

      Tell me why gays wish to take marriage and change it to accommodate their desires instead of creating their own union unique to their situation.

      What makes anything sacred? Where does anything derive its value from? What is the purpose of families and why are children only able to be produced from the joining of male and female fertilization? If you do not believe that any of this was brought about by a Higher Power, then why do you believe that evolution lead us to this point? Why are so few members of the population gay in comparison to heterosexuals?

      Why get “married” at all? Why not fight for the same legalities that heterosexual couples who are married receive ? That is the argument that I often hear- they want the same legal benefits. Ok, so why not lobby for the same benefits without even involving or requiring a union? Is it because gays deem it a sacred institution as well, something that binds them together in a commitment that is valued and then sacrosanct to them? Many gays go on then to wish to have a family also bound to them once they have established a union between themselves. They want to bring children into a family, not just a partnership between themselves. Why? If they can obtain the same legal situation unmarried and obtain children unmarried- then what is the purpose of marriage to them? Do you think that they think it is important for “their” children to be children of a marriage or does it matter?

      Is something given that much significance but yet not considered sacred (and I’m not just speaking in terms of religiosity)? Why do gays ultimately wish to marry? That is my question to you. If marriage is not sacred and is not the root of families who in turn are the foundation of all that makes up a successful and prospering society (as it has done for many generations past), then what is it and why is it then desired to be had?

      I read something recently regarding the SCOTUS decision that elucidated my prior meanderings on the matter more solidly.

      “The relationship between a man and a woman has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that cannot be emulated by any other human relationship. (I’ll add here, without unnatural or detached assistance which even then would still be unnatural with respects to being an evolutionary family).

      Societies across the globe and throughout history, until about 12 minutes ago, have attested to the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization depends entirely on it. No other relationship bears the weight of that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded this bond a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a name: marriage.

      Marriage is the context in which families are formed and maintained. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family, and to obliterate any reason for the institution to exist."

      Peter and Tom, You can believe what you wish to believe about what marriage is or is not. That is your prerogative and these are my personal beliefs regarding marriage. I have said that I would never wish for gays who wish to have the same equal protections and rights that married couples have, to not be able to receive them. I have never wished to deprive gay people any of the rights that heterosexuals are afforded. Indeed, my family and church are committed to siding with and ensuring that everyone receive equal rights and benefits in our society, gays and heterosexuals alike.

      But fair is still fair and one should not be able to be told that they aren’t allowed to hold anything “sacred” in their lives that may interfere with the desires of another to deprive them of that in order to receive what they want according to what THEY hold “sacred” in their own lives. One does not lose their religion while at work no matter how much you wish they would. We are humans, not robots and we do not have to deny our beliefs because another man says we do. When I say deny- I mean we mind our own business at work,keeping our beliefs to ourselves. But if you come to me and request that I perform a task that is adamantly opposed to my sacred beliefs you should not be able to force me to do it anyway or ruin my life otherwise. Again, I know you don’t agree with this and I’m sure you’ll be out enacting vigilante justice against every single business you find that does not rigidly conform to your legal expectations. You may want to quit your day job because your ideals of perfection will guaranteed fall FAR short of what business realities area and will always be. In other words, you have your work cut out for you. Or maybe you’ll just focus on the big perpetrators of these crimes- like this bakery…who deprived a couple of a cake….Oh, the horror and shame.

      Tom- we are not talking about ONE great church ruling over all and dictating daily life….OR ELSE…to everyone in society. Are all of the men that you mentioned members of the same church or something???? I’m pretty sure they are not so that makes NO sense. We have an untold number of churches in our society and none of them is persecuted (as long as they do not seek to harm others).

      If there is not a jihad going on against Christian beliefs then why am I reading everywhere about them being sued left and right (this is prior to a select few Christians THEN enacting the same actions in return). Why am I labeled a bigot because I do hold certain things sacred in my life while ALSO not wishing harm or less equal rights and protections to others? The definition of a bigot is someone who is not tolerant of others who believe differently than they do. Thus, those who cite Christians as being bigots merely because they are religious in their own right, would be bigots themselves. Is that not correct?

      When you say it cannot trespass into the workforce that is implying that people are out there in great masses openly denying services to others on account of their gayness. THAT, my friend, is NOT happening. How often have these circumstances arose, first of all. Secondly, when they do occur it is still with respect for another. They respectfully declined to bake a cake that could easily and readily be had elsewhere. Wow, yeah. That screams of the same kind of English persecution that once reigned.

      People are sick to death of the gay agenda and the gay parades everywhere with the scantily dressed perverts gyrating all around the block and bringing their children there to do the same (and before you discount this, I have seen this with my OWN eyes in our nearby gay parade. One can also watch any number of YouTube videos or online videos demonstrating this). People are up in arms (both Christian, other denominations, and NO denominations) who still hold civility and morality in society sacrosanct and do not appreciate what the nazi gays are doing with all of it. And my distinction of Nazi- gays would compare to Nazi-Christians/other denominations who, I am fully aware, DO go out and attempt to very disrespectfully push their agenda and beliefs onto others without respect to the wishes of others (though I do not typically find those people gyrating half naked through the streets once-twice a year). They come to the doorstep of my church and do this to my congregation when we are trying to enjoy our own religious services. They all exist but in extremely negligible statistics and yet they warrant so much of everyone’s time and attention.

      Again, however, that is NOT what happened in the case with the Kleins and their bakery. And, treason??? Wow, seriously?

    • commented 2015-07-15 14:16:35 -0400
      @tom… thanks for your input; you make some good points. Let’s hear what Elisabeth has to say about my question.

    • commented 2015-07-15 14:11:10 -0400
      @peter! good question. well, dare say the churches? in Catholicism, we call it the sacrament of marriage. along with that, enter the GOP — Huckabee, Santorum, Jindal, Walker, Cruz, et all! if they get to the WH, they want to change the constitution in terms of their own beliefs. that is why the founding fathers left England — one church, one religion, and anything different, would be considered heresy, hence our Constitution — freedom of religionS. notice the capital S — plural. that means many denominations. what the GOP has done and continuing to do, along with those who believe there is a ‘jihad against their christian beliefs,’ therein lies the problem. they take their denomination’s beliefs and start to trespass on others, pushing them and pointing out their sins. they have misinterpreted the Constitution which only deals with denominations which beliefs must remain within the church and the persons’ individual lives. it cannot trespass into the workforce. what is happening is the GOP wants to change the Constitution to have it back they way it was in England, which, in my opinion, constitutes treason. the NY Times, quoted Sotomayor right at the time of the decision of marriage equality: ‘…Mr. Bursch said the institution of marriage was under siege, (along with Huckabee) and that births out of wedlock had grown rapidly since 1970. Justice Sotomayor said the change was not because of “the recent gay marriages,” a point Mr. Bursch acknowledged.’ I SAY ** the demise of marriage was already in practice long before the sexual revolution. straights said that a piece of paper — the marriage certificate — was not necessary, because it didn’t DEFINE (oops, that word again!) marriage. instead, it heralded in ‘common law,’ thereby having free sex outside of marriage, including children born out of wedlock — they call them bastards. so gays have nothing to do with it.

      in Puritan day, it would have warranted the scarlet letter and either excommunicated from the community or put in the stockades in the middle of town!

      i’m may have rambled on, forgive me. i just wanted to comment and add on with an FYI!

      thanks for your dialogue!

    • commented 2015-07-15 12:43:53 -0400
      Who determines that marriage is a sacred institution that revolves around family? What makes it sacred? Where did you get this idea from?

    • commented 2015-07-15 12:20:16 -0400
      I’m on board with everyone having Equal Rights. That means gays can do whatever union it is that gives them the same legal rights that marriage affords heterosexual couples. Marriage is a sacred institution that revolves around the family structure which is what holds the fabric of society together. It is not something gays can create themselves and it is what allows children to have both a mother and a father. I know all the arguments that you may have to challenge this idea (as in infertile couples being unable to have children, heterosexuals who do not wish to have children, elderly couples marrying, and so on – all being unable to produce families) and I have counter points for them. But this is the gist of the whole premise of that and the bakers not being allowed to retain their sacredly held religions beliefs as they interact in life on a daily basis in business or without. Religious people are not able to act as religious people (again no empty M&M arguments please, this is the fabric of many religions regarding the family and its divine purpose) because the government sometimes allows it and sometimes not (usually not it if is a Christian business of late) whatever their whim or political pressure at the given moment may be. The way that they behave and the choices they make – each and EVERY one – is what they reflect of their religion. Their choice to not provide a fundamental marriage icon to the lesbians as they chose to celebrate their happy union, should be no ones business but their own. They are not hurting anyone, they are not depriving the lesbians of getting the cake elsewhere nor telling other people not to sell to them. Perhaps legally, but not morally can you take someone’s sacredly held belief and tell them, "well, since the government says you have to in the name of not hurting anyone else’s feelings though they could readily find it somewhere else, you have to do it. Morality is what holds society together. Start depriving people of the expression of theirs and what kind of turn do you think society will be taking? You’re religious beliefs that make up WHO you are be damned because their sexual orientation and right to have a confection from you is more important.

      Again, I fully understand your argument for it. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it as do many states who provide for this type religious protection still.. That may change, as you pointed out in the name of “progress” though I’ll contend that it is not in fact progress but leading us further toward the demise that many peoples in the world have found when they’ve abandoned morality to accomplish other agendas, but it still wouldn’t settle anything (businesses would still serve who they wish whether they say it or not. The bakers could have told the lesbians that they were all booked out, but that too would’ve been being deceptive which likely is not in following with their religious beliefs, though that would’ve certainly prevented this whole whoopla) nor would it be right. People think making a law will automatically solve any problem. The President telling terrorists that we are their friends now, telling them our Country is horrible and we should be punished, will suddenly make them not be terrorists? Forcing businesses to hire based on skin color and other such nonsense versus allowing them the freedom to hire whomever THEY deem to be truly the most suitable for the job does nothing in the name of progress for our society. True progress comes with our moral behaviors and actions. Liberals want to control everything in the name of “fairness” because they have no faith in their fellow man to do the right thing without coercion never realizing that the contrived situations they create in the name of it always brings about secondary consequences that certainly are not progressive but rather regressive. Look at all the laws and rulings to protect black people and are said that they will raise them out of the repressed background to which they were placed by slavery many years ago. No matter how many equal protection laws and such that they pass, no matter how much money they redirect from the pockets of hard-working Americans to supposedly help these poor people, there are still more of them poor today having seen NO benefit from any of this middle & upperclass looting in their names because that was truly never the intention of those who created the “protective” and “progressive” laws in the first place.
      I digress, but perhaps that has answered your question. it is not about me wanting to deprive anyone of their free agency and truest life desires. It is about maintaining some semblance of fairness for both parties. The lesbians can still find a beautiful and delicious cake made elsewhere and still celebrate their union. The bakers can be boycotted against by people who do not agree with how they run their business but still walk away with their religious beliefs intact (that did not physically harm or maim anyone or do anything to ruin or deprive the lesbians of going forward and leading a quality life- and sorry but feeeeelings don’t count). Both parties will still be free and protected. Gays can create their own legal unions that protect the families they create with their free agency that is automatically afforded with even the most basic of human rights. There is no need to usurp the union of marriage from heterosexuals. Marriage is not the union of gays, it is the union of heterosexuals- always has been. So why is it that gays will not allow that, in the same name of fairness, and come up with their own union with exactly the same legal rights afforded to heterosexual couples? THAT is why I am not on board with gay “marriage”. Fair is not fair when you deprive someone of their basic rights and beliefs in favor of your own.

    • commented 2015-07-15 03:08:14 -0400
      Why aren’t you on board with gay marriage?

    • commented 2015-07-15 02:21:19 -0400
      There is an ego that propels you to continue to argue and discuss until the issue has long been beaten down and ideas exchanged are merely reworded to keep it going.

      The discussion never was about whether or not gays are any different from heterosexuals in regards to Equal Rights.

      I understand your “confidence” in regards to your stance in this matter.

      Churches may be free for the moment with tax exempt status but it is being discussed widely now that this should be changed because they are bigoted in their beliefs. I would say it is a slippery slope with this, but we all know one thing leads to another because the nazis of the homosexual cause will continue to push against every perceived boundary to their “Equal Rights” because enough is never enough. Christians who do not condone gay marriage and will not perform it are being touted as extreme bigots who must be put in their place Thus, the opponents of these churches will continue to push and fight for them to be stripped of their status because of this “discrimination”.

      Agree to disagree that we progress as a society by disallowing religion into the lives we lead as citizens who participate in commerce and society. Laws do NOT stop it from happening as we discussed a bit in earlier conversations. Whether other businesses are as forward with their reasonings for why they choose to service certain people but not others (which they are not because they know all too well the legalities of doing such), they will continue to do it. They will continue to profile and use their judgment. I will always say that they are entitled to pick and choose whomever they want to do business with just as WE can pick and choose who we will allow to do business with us. It will never not happen just because some laws say it must be so. Common sense and sacred religious and moral proclivities weigh heavily on who we are and the decisions we make by the minute in our day to day lives. To say that people must turn into autonomous robots so as not to offend anybody ever when they enter the workplace is asinine. It will never happen because we are human. That is my point in all of this – no law is going to control and stifle human nature enough to satisfy everyone so I say we let Capitalism roll out the welcome wagon to people to run businesses as they see fit. Now this is not allowing for anything other than for people to decide what is best for their business. If they wish to be “bigots” in how they run their business then they will inflame others who will in turn boycott them and they will risk going under which is contrary to the purpose of going through all of the insane regulations and trouble to start a business in the first place.

      I get where you are coming from, I really do. I just do not agree with the part of it where people should have to check their sacred religious beliefs at the door (again, this is not arbitrary green M&M stuff) and offend God in their eyes to satisfy any man. Sorry, that will never seem “fair” or “equal” in my book. Their business can fail which could very well be a logical consequence of being boycotted for their beliefs and that’s a risk they’d know they were signing up for when they became business owners- but their religious beliefs would still be intact and for MOST religious people that trumps all else, consequences be damned.
      .
      I will say that I don’t believe you’d fight for my freedom to change laws I do not agree with as you state nor do you wish me luck in those endeavors. You called me a sick extreme bigot, as I recall. You obviously hold strong views regarding the “equal” treatment of others and feel that my views oppose this to a very unsatisfactory level to yourself. I may not be on board with gay marriage, but I am on board with equal rights though you’d disagree with me asserting that. I just define it differently than you. Religious rights should be equally placed among all the other rights. One should not trump another and there are new rulings that say that as well. I guess we will see where the tide takes us all.

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: