Christ not only would be proud He is proud.

Believing in Christ carries with it a belief in a moral code.

Are you not casting stones also with your statement? Where is you moral code?


>> ^PostalBlowfish:

These bigots can't even be good Christians while pretending to be. Christ would be ashamed.
Too many people spending too much time throwing their moral code at others to look at themselves and see what assholes they are when judged by the same set of standards.

I'm pro-gay marriage, but this is just a guy refusing to accept money for a service due to personal beliefs/opinions. Gay marraige is non-traditional, and will remain 'atypical' in many people's eyes for a couple more decades. Personally, I can't be mad at people who think of themselves as traditional/conservative when they act in the way they self-define.

If a creepy 55 year old guy and a quiet little 17 year-old came into my hypothetical bakery, would I refuse to make a cake for their wedding? Maybe ... maybe thats my limit to what is socially acceptable... and I think it would be my prerogative to refuse serving them.


(p.s. I up-arrowed a good number of Shiny's comments to offset down-arrows... in my mind 'downvoting' on this site is reserved for innapropriate comments, like personal attacks.)

>> ^bobknight33:

Its a cake. Lighten up. Is you IQ less than 100? Just wondering because your argument is is lame.
Lock up all the Bobs. I hate Bobs. Bobs are bad. Bobs are evil.


One day I was walking through town and a man asked me for directions to Uluru (also known as Ayers Rock). I was somewhat taken aback as I live in the south island of New Zealand also known as not fucking Australia (apologies to my bold-hating quasi-fan-club but sometimes I just gotta rock that shit). Anyway after explaining to said person that he had, in fact, arrived in an entirely different country, I proceeded to wax lyrical on the many wondrous qualities that make up the isolated little outcrop of the south pacific which I currently reside upon.

At this point, and I shit you not, he asked me a) had I been an extra in the lord of the rings and b) where he might go orc-hunting.

What, the average reader might relevantly inquire, does this have to do with the conversation at hand?

Well, until today, that was the most retarded conversation I have ever had the misfortune to take part in. Thankfully, @bobknight33 has reminded me that there is always someone even more idiotic out there.

Yeah, sorry, I have to disagree with that last part. You read that whole exchange, you can see for yourself how he tried to change the subject, shift the burden, and otherwise distract from the argument at hand.

The central argument is not whether or not freedom of religion is under fire. No one is disputing that Chik-Fil-A or the cake store owner is within their rights to refuse service. The misunderstanding is that they seem to believe that because it's their right, they're immune to criticism.

That's two different things.

I have every right to change my name to Foo Foo Farty Pants. That doesn't mean you can't give me crap about it.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. He wants to be free to express his opinion, but other people are apparently not free to voice their opinion that he's full of shit.

Others have already mentioned it but if a store refused service to christians, there would be massive amounts of outrage from the right and they'd be screaming at the top of their lungs about the "war on Christianity"

The right to refuse service swings both ways. I would argue that refusing service to ANY demographic is unnecessary and dumb and ultimately a poor business decision. That's not what the right to refuse service is supposed to be for. I'm pretty sure it's meant for dealing with unruly, disruptive, belligerent people, not to advance a religious/political agenda.

>> ^dag:

Good discussion. Be gentle with SB - he's the only one we've got - and an important perspective.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.

I respectfully disagree with every element of your comment.
>> ^dag:

Good discussion. Be gentle with SB - he's the only one we've got - and an important perspective.

>> ^dag:

Good discussion. Be gentle with SB - he's the only one we've got - and an important perspective.


Honestly, I want to, but he really doesn't make it easy.

>> ^petpeeved:
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.
That would be the title of a frikkin awesome Dr Seuss book.

I agree. And I'm a "religious person."

The vast majority of religious people are nothing like the members of Westboro Baptist Church. I have no problem with your general sentiment about being kind and loving to everyone. I have a problem when you say "religious people glorify in the hatred of others."

That's just a hateful thing to say about me.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Just because he didn't say hate doesn't mean it isn't in him. To act like that, to willfully turn away a customer because you look down upon them and their lifestyle? That's bigotry, intolerance of another. Especially in light of the bible explicitly saying not to judge others.
Terrorism, really? You're silly.
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
I bring this up because I feel that servicing a customer is part of operating inside of society and being an obedient and humble person, just as your religious text wants you to be.
Wielding judgement is for your god alone.
>> ^deedub81:
" I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others."
Using the same hyperbole that you do, I can paint all non-religious people with as broad a brush by saying "I don't understand why all non-religious people are violent terrorists and threaten hard working families with death threats."
I'm religious and I wouldn't deny business to somebody for being gay just like you didn't (and wouldn't) call in a death threat to this guy.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Ahh the "I know you are but what am I" argument. I see you've fallen to @bobknight33 levels of competence in debating.

Time for bed, but feel free to make another long winded self-important, wall of text post that is easily demolished in a sentence or two. I'll read it and chuckle in the morning.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not the one doing the dodging here, VoodooV.
>> ^VoodooV

I'm not the one doing the dodging here, VoodooV.

>> ^VoodooV

My world view is not under scrutiny here today shiny. Nice attempt at dodging the topic again. I'm not the one that is arguing that my beliefs should be treated as fact. The burden of proof is on you, amigo.

Please try again. I can shoot your nonsense down faster than you can dream it up.

>> ^shinyblurry:

more blah blah blah blah

>> ^VoodooV:
none of which means a damn in the real world.
I refer you again to my earlier references to circular logic and how you fail to comprehend how it's a fallacy. Using a deity you can't prove exist as an authoritative source continues to get you nowhere.
>> ^shinyblurry:
blah blah blah blah
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.

You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.

Its a cake. Lighten up. Is you IQ less than 100? Just wondering because your argument is is lame.

Lock up all the Bobs. I hate Bobs. Bobs are bad. Bobs are evil.

>> ^VoodooV:

Cool, I can lock Bob up in a concentration camp just because his name is bob.
Who cares, right bob? It's just discrimination right? it's all for the lulz right? Discrimination puts hair on your chest mIrite?
It's my religious belief that all people named bob are evil so I'm protected from all criticism right?
As usual, Bob is clueless
>> ^bobknight33:
Who cares.
Every one gets discriminated for something at some point in time grow up and find another cake.
Get a life.
Its a mom and pop store he can deny service for any reason.

You didn't understand what the video was talking about, or what I was talking about. I'll repeat what I said to you:

There are only two ways to know the truth. One is that you're omnipotent, and the other is if an omnipotent being tells you what it is. Christians claim to have revealed truth from an omnipotent being. What is your claim? "I don't know". That's fine, but you have no route to the truth. There is no situation where you are going to be able to know what it is. You're going by your intuition and reasoning, which is limited, subjective, biased, and ultimately flawed.

I can also easily demonstrate that your entire worldview is based on viciously circular reasoning. If you don't believe that, then answer this question:

How do you know the Universe is real?



>> ^VoodooV:

none of which means a damn in the real world.
I refer you again to my earlier references to circular logic and how you fail to comprehend how it's a fallacy. Using a deity you can't prove exist as an authoritative source continues to get you nowhere.