$135,000 fine wasn’t for Refusing to Make a Wedding Cake. It was because of this.

There is no way the refusal to make a cake would result in a business a six figure penalty!?!  And if you believed there was more, you are correct.

The anti-LGBT owners of an Oregon bakery were not fined simply for refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple – they were ordered to pay $135,000 in damages for intentionally causing their would-be customers emotional distress.

The case has attracted widespread media attention since the couple first filed their complaint in January 2013, and that is largely through the efforts of Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

After the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries handed down the order last week, Aaron Klein claimed the ruling was an example of the “persecution of Christians” in the U.S. – therawstory.com

It seems that the Court didn't really care if the Klein's lost business, gained, business, or even stayed in business, and didn't even care that they were Christians.  Religion had nothing to do with the ruling.  It was all about what the Klein's did to bring attention to the shunned lesbian couple, the other side of the debate.

[The] ruling shows the bakery owners had made Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer the victims of persecution and makes clear the payment was compensation for damages and not a fine or civil penalty, reported the blog Love, Joy and Feminism.  The ruling shows the Kleins “brought the case to the media’s attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding” the couple who filed the complaint.

Read the entire ruling here

“It was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact (the Bowman-Cryers), making (the Kleins) liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by (them),” the agency found.

Not only that, as the blog explains, the bakery owners shared the couple’s personal contact information – which led to death threats that nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children. – therawstory.com

One of the morals of this story is, if you're going to be anonymous or if you don't want to leave a paper trail, read the fine print.  It's almost like those 50 times you've hit "reply all" by mistake and gotten yourself into hot water.

Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed the complaint in January 2013, after she and her mother had met with Aaron Klein – who refused them service and quoted an anti-LGBT verse from Leviticus.

She filed her complaint by smartphone, which prevented her from seeing a disclaimer notifying her that her full name and address would be sent to the bakery owners – and Aaron Klein shared that information, along with the complaint, on his personal Facebook page.

Conservative media and anti-LGBT organizations such as the Family Research Council promoted the Kleins as victims of religious discrimination.

Rachel Bowman-Cryer said she and her wife received a steady stream of threats that continued as the Kleins promoted their side of the case in national media appearances.  – therawstory.com

It's bad enough that an argument about poor service and discrimination gets you death threats, but when it leads to you almost losing your family, it's gone too far.

[Rachel Bowman-Cryer] testified that state adoption officials told them they were responsible for keeping their two foster daughters safe from those threats, and they feared they could lose custody of the girls — who they have since adopted.

In its final order, issued last week, the labor bureau found the Kleins had violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws – but the damages awarded were not a “gay fascism tax.”

The bureau found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.” – therawstory.com

No fines were placed on anyone because they were Christian, LGBT, lactose intolerant, a duck, etc.  The fines occurred because the lives of a growing family were put in danger.  I think both parties might have reacted a little too fast and furious which resulted in threats being made and people fearing for their lives. 

We are fortunate that no one was physically hurt in Cake Wars 2013, 2014, and 2015 .  We need to think before either side starts a modern day witch hunt, Christian to LGBT or vice versa.  The road cake rage is getting way out of control and just basically needs to stop.  Please no more.  Bring your business to someone who appreciates you and values you.  And when it comes to a wedding cake, I might ask my mom to make me mine cuz, yeah, she's that good.

And here's some food for thought or maybe even a video for thought.  Is it wrong that I agree with this guy? 

 

 

60 thoughts on “$135,000 fine wasn’t for Refusing to Make a Wedding Cake. It was because of this.”

  1. Too bad Rachel didn’t read

    Too bad Rachel didn't read the fine print. All repercussions were her own fault. 
    I am so sick of these cry-baby gays and lesbians. Anyone should have the right to refuse anyone else service if they feel like it. For whatever reason. That is what freedom in America is really about. These militant, money grubbing, bullying and emotionally retarded sexual deviants need to grow up and simply go get a cake, or whatever, somewhere else! The Kleins had every right to retaliate by posting Baby Rachel's complaint against them. What about the "emotional distress" as well as actual financial loss suffered by the Kleins, for simply believing what they believe as strongly as Rachel does? Seems that doesn't matter! Only the lesbos feelings matter.  From the looks of her, she should not be eating cake anyway and could stand to lose 30 pounds. If she and her spouse ever crossed my path, I wouldn't say a word and run quickly the other way.

    Reply
  2. “She filed her complaint by

    "She filed her complaint by smartphone, which prevented her from seeing a disclaimer notifying her that her full name and address would be sent to the bakery owners – and Aaron Klein shared that information, along with the complaint, on his personal Facebook page."

     

    So what? He has a constitutionally protected right to speak out against this person if he so chooses. She has no right to complain anonymously or to remain anonymous. If third parties choose to threaten her, harass her or even kill her, he has no responsibility for that unless he advocated violence against her and there is no evidence he did. Virtually any speech critical of a person could result in third parties taking various actions against the person in question, the person exercising their first amendment rights is not responsible for what some third party chooses to do. If they were virtually all criticism of politicians and other government officials would immediately grind to a halt. This ruling will be quickly overturned if it ever gets before an appeals court.

    Reply
    • The fact that the bakery

      The fact that the bakery disclosed the contact details of these woman, makes them at fault and they should pay! Read the full story before leaving comments that make no sense.

      Reply
      • I read the the details. You

        I read the the details. You're the one who makes no sense. By all means little fool point me to the part of the first amendment that says you can't identify people who try to violate your first amendment rights. Yeah, right, you can't because IT DOESN'T EXIST. So what if they disclosed the contact information???? That's their first amendment right. These gutless cowards have no right to file anonymous complaints. If they file a complaint then they should be prepared to stand behind it with their real name and contact info. You little crybabbies have no right to anonymity. If you have an opinion then have the balls to put your name to it and defend your positions.

        Reply
  3. Would Jesus ever turn a

    Would Jesus ever turn a person away based on their sexual orientation? WWJD? Keep that in mind If your dare call yourself a "Christian"! I couldn't care less what your bible says! Turn the other cheek for your own sakes!

    Reply
    • “Would Jesus ever turn a

      "Would Jesus ever turn a person away based on their sexual orientation? "

      Given the absolute  and harsh condemnations of homosexuality in the bible every single time it is mentioned, I am confident in saying that if Jesus actually existed, yes he would absolutely positively refuse to provide a cake for a gay or lesbian wedding. There is absolutely nothing the bible that requires or advises Christians to condone or further a sin.

      Reply
      • The bible also calls

        The bible also calls shellfish, shaving, short haircuts, and mixed fabrics a sin against god too. Might want to rethink that argument.

        Reply
        • Little child, I don’t need to

          Little child, I don't need to rethink anything. You need to learn to think rationally. Since this is a discussion about what Christians would do when following Christian theology, which, afterall, is OBVIOUSLY the theology that they look to for guidance, you would need to find something in the Christian bible condoning whatever previously condemned thing you want to try to claim is "ok". In this case, homosexuality. You can't do that and your entire argument is irrelevant. Naming a bunch of other things condemned by the bible does nothing to undermine it's repeated and strong condemnations of homosexuality. Your logic is akin to being stopped for speeding and saying: "But littering is illegal too".

          Reply
        • I get really tired of people

          I get really tired of people misreading the "bible rules'.  Yes, shellfish are a no-no, but shaving, mixed fabrics and short hair are not.  Or at least it is not that simple.  For example, you are not supposed to wear fabric made of wool and linen.  Who does?  Your polyester is just fine.

          Reply
        • Oh right Christians are

          Oh right Christians are supposed to just ignore biblical passages like:

          Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

           

          Really you clueless fool, how can that BE ANYMORE CLEAR. You couldn't write a more clear and absolute condemnation if you tried. Sorry to tell you but religions don't just magically change to accomodate the wishes of the perverted gays.

           

           

          Reply
  4. It just seems like a poor
    It just seems like a poor business decision, especially now in the wake of gay marriage being legalized in every state. Now they they are going to lose out on the profits of all the gay marriages that are taking place.

    Reply
    • So if it’s such a poor

      So if it's such a poor business decision then why not simply let the free market handle it. If people want to refuse service to gays then let them make the "poor business decision" and do that. A majority of states do just that. Totally legal to refuse all service to gays in my state and in many others.

      Reply
  5. “In its final order, issued

    "In its final order, issued last week, the labor bureau found the Kleins had violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws"

     

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     

    Sure and none of the monetary award had anything to do with that right? Yeah sure. LMAO some more at this spin piece.

    Reply
  6. LMFAO Well then according to

    LMFAO Well then according to this article the ruling is even more blatantly unconstitutional since it plainly and clearly violates their right to free speech. Sorry to tell you but speech critical of the gay lifestyle and which truthfully identifies those who practice said lifestyle is 100% constitutionally protected. Offensive speech is also 100% protected.

    Reply
    • Actually, it makes the ruling

      Actually, it makes the ruling entirely constitutional. There is no constitutional right to harassment, which is what they were being fined for. 

       

      Reply
      • No they weren’t, in spite of

        No they weren't, in spite of this articles attempts to spin it, they were fined for violating Oregon's fascist anti-discrimination act and sorry to tell you but identifying fascist little gays who demand acceptance of their lifestyle is not "harassment" it's simply stating the truth.

        Reply
  7. Oh I’m sure those women had

    Oh I'm sure those women had some "emotional" scarring. (Sarcasm). The women could have gone to a different place to get they're cake. But they just couldn't stand that someone had a different opinion than them. That store was family owned therefore they could turn someone down if it went against what they believed. Unfortunately bullies who think that everyone should have the same opinion made them shut down the store. And it's so funny that the shop owners are called "intolerant" when it was the gay couple who really is.

    Reply
    • Did you not fully read this.

      Did you not fully read this. They were being attacked  by highly intolerant people. And I am sorry it's a business and anyone should be able to use said business. He shared her personal info. Would you refuse an anabapist or an Anglican service no because that is illegal. 

      Reply
      • LMFAO Instinct magazine and

        LMFAO Instinct magazine and about 1000 other news outlets have shared more than enough of their personal info for me to get home address, DOB, SSN and everything else I want on both of them for less than $50 in about 5 minutes if I wanted it. It's called free speech and if you don't like it don't let the door hit you in the ass. I'm sure this judgment is going to make the lesbians real popular with all those "intolerant" people. I doubt they were in any danger before, but they probably are now.

        Reply
  8. I don’t comment on these
    I don’t comment on these things but did anyone read the article? They weren’t ordered to pay punitive damages because of the refusal of service; it was because the owners took the couple’s information, posted it on their Facebook page then kept pumping it into the media. In result, radical right wing Christians started death threats to the lesbian couple -many of them. To the point where The State threatened to intervene and take their adopted kids in fear for their lives. The bakery owners kept pumping the media screaming religious persecution when in fact THEY were putting the lives of the couple in greater danger from bigoted, radicals. When all was said and done that’s what the court decided was the violation that deserved punitive damages not the refusal of service.

    Reply
    • So the bakery owners don’t

      So the bakery owners don't have the right to speak out against someone and identify the person they are speaking out against because of what third parties might do??? LMAO that's a good one. Your "logic" would pretty much eliminate all free speech critical of anything or anyone.

      Reply
        • Wrong. The only speech that

          Wrong. The only speech that would not be protected is speech which was likely to result in an IMMEDIATE breech of the peace or outright advocation of violence. None of which they did. Identifying the couple and stating their position against them and their lifestyle is 100% constitutionally protected free speech. Sorry to break it to you but even cross burning is protected free expression per the SCOTUS. If fascist enablers like you had your way any and all speech critical of anyone including politicians would be prohibited as "harassment". Virtually any and all speech can potentially anger third parties to the point that they commit or threaten to commit illegal acts. That is NOT the litmus test.

          Reply
      • Wrong. The only speech that

        Wrong. The only speech that would not be protected is speech which was likely to result in an IMMEDIATE breech of the peace or outright advocation of violence. None of which they did. Identifying the couple and stating their position against them and their lifestyle is 100% constitutionally protected free speech. Sorry to break it to you but even cross burning is protected free expression per the SCOTUS. If fascist enablers like you had your way any and all speech critical of anyone including politicians would be prohibited as "harassment".

        Reply
  9. Christian or not, this type
    Christian or not, this type of crap is what’s gives LGBT people a bad name. You cannot force your beliefs on someone else, otherwise I would be a Jehovah’s Witness as often as they come to my door. In Florida businesses reserve the right to refuse business to anyone and should that ever happen, you very simply go to a different similar business. But we need to realize that even though it is legal for us to marry, not everyone approves, and that is their right.

    Reply
    • No is not their right! Two

      No is not their right! Two wrongs don't make a right and is time people start treating everyone as their equal regardless of sex, race or religious belief.  I am sure business refusal are not based on beliefs but on business practices. Is time for our community to give ourselves the value and realize the contributions we provide #nolongerasecondclasscitizen 

      Reply
      • The “contribution” of the

        The "contribution" of the gays is an HIV rate 44 times higher than that of straight men with 20% of them infected. You have to go to some third world cesspool in Africa where they think raping preteens cures HIV to find an HIV rate higher than gay men in the USA have now achieved. 4% of the freaking population and a whopping 59% of all HIV cases because of their rampant promiscuity and disease spreading sexual practices. Yeah, I know, this is where some moron goes: "But but but but straight men get HIV too." Why yes they do, and gay men get it at a rate 44 times higher.

         

        http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/CDC-MSM-508.pdf

        Reply
    • “Christian or not, this type

      "Christian or not, this type of crap is what's gives LGBT people a bad name. You cannot force your beliefs on someone else, otherwise I would be a Jehovah's Witness as often as they come to my door."

      They don't come to my door since I told them they would be shot on sight if they returned, unless of course their god intervened. I guess they had no confidence in that because they have not returned.  In general I have even less tolerance for fascist little faggots.

      Reply
  10. We heap piles of criticism on

    We heap piles of criticism on a gay hotel owner who allowed an ultra right wing politician to use his premises, and thought he should have refused him, but we decry someone who refuses business based on a belief. Kind of having it both ways, if you ask me. Now I'm not supporting the bakery. If you don't support gay weddings, don't bake wedding cakes period, and if you do want to bake wedding cakes, don't discriminate, but let's can the sanctimonious outcry. We're not outraged, we're glad a bigot is getting his/her due.

    Reply
    • People have every right to be

      People have every right to be "bigoted" against your perversion if they want to. You are not entitled to acceptance or even tolerance. Christ gay males have now managed an HIV infection rate 44 times higher than that of hetero men. You think that's because their lifestyle is healthy or anything to be respected?? Gays have an HIV rate more on par with a third world African country than with the US. 20% of gay men are now infected. HIV seems to be pretty "bigoted" since it seems to strongly prefer to infect and kill gay men. When are you gonna sue it? LMAO.

       

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/CDC-MSM-508.pdf

       

       

      Reply
      • Bigot

        Bigot

        : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

        Obviously HIV doesn't discriminate against any particular group, therefore not a bigot. Can't sue it 🙁

        Reply
        • LMFAO Oh yeah it only targets

          LMFAO Oh yeah it only targets the gay man at a rate FORTY FOUR TIMES HIGHER than straight men. Of course everyone knows that's because of their rampant promiscuity and incredibly unhealthy sexual practices. Gays have managed sub-saharan African HIV rates right here in the USA. They should be so proud. They are their own little 3rd world HIV epidemic. I predict at least 40% infected in 10 years. No amount of public acceptance or court mandates will ever make an unhealthy lifestyle healthy.

          Reply
  11. Funny how they will bake a

    Funny how they will bake a cake for an atheist or someone who has been living together having sex maybe even already have children and are not married yet. The Bible is much more condemning  on these matters. Yet because "those sinners" are straight they will still make them their cake. This is not about religious believes, it is 100% about bigotry. 

    Reply
    • “Lev 20:13 “If there is a man

      "Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.""

      "Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

       

      Seems like there is a pretty damn clear and strong condemnation to me. Also, atheists are not asking for a cake for a freaking atheist wedding and people who already have children without being married probably aren't asking for a freaking cake to commemorate the children they had out of wedlock. Meanwhile the lesbians are asking for a cake FOR A LESBIAN WEDDING. So, the differences are pretty damn obvious to anyone with a brain. If logically challenged people like you are what votes then the country is pretty well screwed.

      Reply
      • You’re calling people

        You're calling people logically challenged when you're basing your argument on the bible? Really?

        Reply
        • I don’t need to base my

          I don't need to base my argument on the bible. The comment I responded to CLEARLY put the debate on Christian theological terms by hypothesizing about what Christians would or would not do under certain circumstances. I don't need to believe the bible to argue that Christians per their theology would take a different position towards baking a cake for a gay wedding than the other things that were mentioned. If you could think rationally you would have immediately realized that.

          Reply
  12. I want to see the lawsuits

    I want to see the lawsuits awarding sometime hundreds of thousands of dollars when they demand that a gay friendly bakery make a cake for someone insisting that the cake espouses traditional marriage. I can't wait. But we know that the gay-Gestapo will never allow that.

    Reply
    • I’m sure you do, but you won

      I'm sure you do, but you won't. If it ain't happened yet it's because gays don't do that kind of thing. You'll be waiting a long time.

      Reply
    • Gay florists, bakers, tailors

      Gay florists, bakers, tailors, caterers, shop owners, photographers…. have been helping straight couples throw fabulous weddings for many many years now. It's not news.

      Reply
    • You don’t need to wait for

      You don't need to wait for that. You can take a page from the Gaystapo playbook, get some like minded people together and have each one use two or three Yelp and Google places accounts to negative review the gay owned business you are targeting into oblivion. The Gaystapo does it to anyone they disagree with and you can do it to.

      Reply
  13. Religions freedom? It is more

    Religions freedom? It is more about Christian power! With TRUE religious freedom, we need to put EQUAL VALUE in ALL RELIGIONS –not just give the ultimate power to bigoted Christians. Besides, there are many Christians who say that it is against their religious belief to discriminate. Not all Christians are happy to control and hurt others, as these bakery-bigots are trying to do. Also, there are some religions, if given religious freedom to do so, would discriminate against Christians… Now imagine that uproar.

     

    When people say they want religious freedom to hurt innocent people, they are using a term called masking their words. They are wanting to be free to discriminate (based on religious right to do so.) But we in America do not allow discrimination. That is why they are wining and whining about it so much The bullies are now claiming to be VICTIMS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T VICTIMIZE OTHERS!!! WHAAAAAT!!!!???? 

     

    ​I say let these evil bigots get every bit of punitive damage that we can throw at them. They deserve only the amount of love that they show to the most vulnerable in their lives. None. 

    Bye bye, Bakery-Bigots!!! …They don't deserve a moment of sympathy. Nothing. 

    Reply
    • Your post is just a bunch of

      Your post is just a bunch of BS trying to justify forcing people to associate with those they have no desire to associate with against their will. You're just another little fascist wanting the government to impose your will on others. I suspect the backlash against the lesbians in this case is just beginning. They are going to wind up spending every dime they get and 2 more on top of it on security.

      Reply
  14. As a gay man who is also

    As a gay man who is also Christian (yes it IS possible, there are MANY of us), I don't think that anyone should be forced to do anything that violates their religious beliefs. After all we allow soldiers to refuse to carry a gun if their religious beliefs prohibit them from doing so. This is no different. The owners of the bakery were well within their rights to refuse to bake the cake; it's called Freedom of Association, and it's in the Constitution, which means not only that we have the right to associate with who we want but also that we have the right to choose NOT to associate with someone. In this case the owners weren't refusing the couple service because of their sexual orientation (they would have baked them ANYTHING else), they were choosing not to associate themselves or their business with a social gathering that clearly violated their sincerely held religious beliefs.

    The same would be true if I, as a Christian, were asked to print signs for Westboro Baptist Church. I would obviously refuse them service not only because they're detestable but because what they do violates my religious beliefs and it would be a sin for me to serve them.

    If we allow the government to force these kinds of business owners to serve us against their religious beliefs, the government will then have no choice but to also force US to serve the REAL scum of this country, like WBC and the KKK (and Nikki Haley, but let's not go there) against our very sincerely held beliefs as well. You can't have one without the other.

    Now, were the bakery owners wrong for villifying the couple? Perhaps. They absolutely had the right to get out their side of the story since (if I'm not mistaken) they were being sued by the couple. In that regard, they were only defending themselves as anyone else would. But if they actually publicly said degrading things about this couple (and no, saying that they believe the couple's sexual orientation to be a sin is NOT a degrading statement) then yes, it was wrong.

    The real question is who was actually liable for the "emotional distress" caused by the situation. I would have to say that the couple is responsible at least in part because they KNEW that the bakery owners were devout Christians who were very conservative. The whole town has known that for years. But they chose to go there, knowing they would be turned away. So in that sense the couple shares in the blame. Also, no one prevented the couple from obtaining a wedding cake. This isn't the only bakery in Oregon, I'm fairly certain of that. Even if they had to go to the next town over to get the cake that's hardly unreasonable, after all I used to have to drive two hours to get to Walmart when I lived out west.

    Reply
    • It’s one thing if you are non

      It's one thing if you are non profit But these Are public businesses.  Separation between church and state. Glade justice was served. 

      Reply
      • WTF are you talking about?

        WTF are you talking about? What does "Separation between church and state" have to do with privately owned businesses that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE?? Do you even know or are you just babbling? There is NOTHING in the first amendment that prevents business owners from incorporating religion into their business practices. On the contrary it protects their right to do just that.

        Reply
    • COMPLETE HORSE SHIT — you

      COMPLETE HORSE SHIT — you should be ashamed!

      1– If you ARE a Gay man, you are an Aunt Tom who believes lies from right wing media

      2– Her Mother got remarried with a cake from there, so they were not strangers, and did not pick out the place to cause trouble. They did not live nearby, so would not have heard of the Kleins' beliefs. ARE YOU A MIND READER, to say they knew he was that way in advance?

      3– Anyone who throws Leviticus in a customer's face is NOT a Christian, just an asshole.

      4— "Perhaps" the baker was wrong for exposing them to death threats and putting their foster children in danger of being removed?  Unfortunately, I don't think you are kidding

      YOU ARE SICK, AND YOU COULD NOT EVEN BE SO STUPID AS TO WRITE THAT, IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD READ THE ARTICLE.

      Reply
      • “Anyone who throws Leviticus

        "Anyone who throws Leviticus in a customer's face is NOT a Christian, just an asshole."

        LMFAO Oh yeah because a Christian would never ever quote from or follow the teachings of their own freaking religious texts. LMFAO some more at your stupidity.

        "Perhaps" the baker was wrong for exposing them to death threats and putting their foster children in danger of being removed?  Unfortunately, I don't think you are kidding.

        Oh so now people can't even speak out against people and identify the people they are speaking out against, lest the cowards face animosity from third parties. That's a good one. By your moronic"logic" if I know a politician is embezzling tax payer money I have to just keep my mouth shut and say nothing lest somebody in the general public get angry at the politician and do or say something unpleasant to him or her, which would then, based on your "logic" and apparently the "logic" of the morons who fined the bakers, be my fault. LMFAO some more. You are out of your mind.

        Try to think before you post this stupidity next time.

        Reply
    • No. no. …It is not ever ok

      No. no. …It is not ever ok to claim to be the victim, just because you are unable to victimize someone else! It is disgusting, and definitely un-Christian. This kind of behavior is anti-Christ. 

       

      The bakery-bigots are living in sin and they are causing a lot of innocent children and adults to be scared and hurt. 

       

      PS. You are not a gay man. I don't believe this post. Unless you are closeted and self-hating. Sorry, but we see through your smoke screen! Not gay and Christian, otherwise, you would have more kindness and love in your heart. 

      Reply
      • “PS. You are not a gay man. I

        "PS. You are not a gay man. I don't believe this post. Unless you are closeted and self-hating."

        Most of them are self hating which is why they are so incredibly insecure about their lifestyles and freak out every time they are criticized.

         

         

        Reply
        • Richie, how long have you

          Richie, how long have you lusted after men? Embrace your sexuality and come out of the closet.

          Reply
          • Son your childish babble

            Son your childish babble which is on the intellectual level of a moderately learning disabled 5th grader doesn't faze me. 🙂 It just proves you have nothing to counter my points. I mean, afterall, how would you defend people so desperate for public acceptance they demand to not only associate with but give money to people who want nothing to do with them? It's without a doubt the epitome of pathetic. 🙂 That's not even getting into the absurd HIV rates of gay men, 44 times higher for gay men than for straight men. That alone makes it a lifestyle you couldn't get me to practice for a million in cash. 🙂 GAY = Got Aids Yet? With 20% infected, there's a good chance the answer is: "Yes". LMAO

    • Stephen…I am in a similar

      Stephen…I am in a similar situation as you, both Christian and gay….I hear what you are saying about constitutional rights etc….however I still cannot reconcile how baking a cake can be considered a sin, or against the beliefs, regardless of what message is on it….Every day I deal with people in my insurance business and I have no idea what their sexual orientation is….should it matter if I discover I am insuring someones beloved collection of sex toys?….our biblical guidance is to "render unto Caesar,,,"…ie, follow the law of the land….but only "rebel" if that law causes us to sin….However, regardless of what was scripturally right or wrong, my main point is as follows….Scripture says that the Gospel of Christ appears as nonsense to those who don"t believe….so forcing what you believe on a non-believer is, naturally, going to bring both confusion and condemnation….instead our job and our only job, is to show people Christ….the love of Christ….the caring, forgiving, understanding, patient, loving Christ…..once you lead a person into relationship, the HE, not us, begins to show them what he wants from them….that gentle conviction of "…I'm not happy with that selfish attitude you have, or that broken relationship with your mother…etc etc….As Christians we MUST stop labelling others….we are all in exactly the same boat, the only difference being we have found an unconditional love that saved us.

       

      Reply
      • If you can’t see the

        If you can't see the difference between providing a cake for a gay wedding, said cake being an instrumental part of the wedding, and selling an insurance policy I probably can't explain it to you.

        Reply
      • “Stephen…I am in a similar

        "Stephen…I am in a similar situation as you, both Christian and gay"

         

        LMAO Ah another one…….

        Here's what your religious text says about your lifestyle choice:

        Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

        It says more too, none of it even remotely condoning.

        You may as well be a "Christian Satanist" as a "Gay Christian". They are both equally mutually exclusive.

         

         

        Reply
    • “As a gay man who is also

      "As a gay man who is also Christian (yes it IS possible, there are MANY of us),"

      LMFAO Oh yeah it's possible, if you ignore every single passage related to homosexuality in your own religious texts. Here are some, now show me the one that in any way shape or form even remotely condones your lifestyle. Right, you can't because everytime homosexuality is referenced in your religious texts it is harshly condemned. A "gay Christian" is as much an oxymoron as a "Christian Satanist".

      "Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

      Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

      1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1

      Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

      Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

      Not too hard to interpret any of those is it? Unless you are completely delusional that is. You better hope the entire religion you profess to practice is nothing but made up nonsense because if not, you are going to burn.

      Reply
    • Oh yeah they are changing.

      Oh yeah they are changing. Gays are infected with HIV at 44 times the rate of heterosexual men. Gays are 4% of the population and 59% of all HIV cases. A whopping 20% of gays have HIV. HIV is killing more gays than at any point in history. They got the rope and they are hanging themselves with it in droves. In 10 years half of them or more will have HIV. That's real progress there. I wonder if when their mouths are full of fungus and they are coughing up blood barely able to breathe from Pneumocystis pneumonia with their bodies covered in sores if they still think taking one in the dirthole was worth it? My guess is, probably not. 

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/CDC-MSM-508.pdf

      Reply

Leave a Comment