Gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out of cafe,
A Seattle, Washington coffee shop owner kicked a group of Christians out of his shop last week because their presence was “offensive” to him.
What were they doing there?
The group had been handing out booklets to Seattle citizens which addressed sin, the Bible, and abortion.
According to The Liberator , the group decided to take a break and stop for coffee at nearby coffee shop, Bedlam Coffee.
The site reported that one of the baristas told the owner what the Christian group had been doing outside on the streets of Seattle, and he didn’t take it well.
What did he say?
The owner, in the video, approaches the Christian group and tells them they have to leave.
“I’m gay, you have to leave,” he said. “This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have the right to be offended.”
The group attempted to tell the owner that they hadn’t left any of their pamphlets in his shop, but the owner wasn’t hearing any of it.
Repeatedly telling them to “shut up,” the owner said, “There’s nothing you can say. This is you and I don’t want these people in this place.”
The Christians pressed the owner as to why he is so opposed to their presence in the shop, and that’s when things got extraordinarily vulgar.
“Can you tolerate my presence? Really?” the owner asked. “If I go get my boyfriend and f**k him in the a** right here you’re going to tolerate that? Are you going to tolerate it?”
Becoming increasingly agitated, the owner yelled, “Answer my f***ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f***ing watch it! Leave, all of you! Tell all your f**king friends don’t come here!”
As the group begins collecting their belongings to leave, one of the women in the group addresses the owner directly and tells him, “Just know that Christ can save you from that lifestyle.”
“Yeah, I like a**,” the owner spat. “I’m not going to be saved by anything. I’d f**k Christ in the a**. Okay? He’s hot.”
As the group left the shop, one of the women in the group told the owner that she would be praying for him.
The video, shared by Facebook account Abolish Human Abortion, has received over 400 views at the time of this writing.
(Content warning: rough language .)
Tags
Who is online
62 visitors
There needs to be a discrimination law suit that will close his business down. He can not discriminate like that. He is a business and he has to serve everynody right?
Isn’t this the kind of world you guys want?
You didn’t get me. I haven’t even given an opinion on this event. I’ve only stated the obvious - if you guys had your way, every clerk in every store would be able to pick and choose who they will agree to serve. They would have to add signs in register isles at the supermarket, to direct different demographics to the employee who will agree serve them.
No! But he's gay and that's all OK with liberals.
But....but....but.... I brought my own cup!!!!
I’ll meet you there!
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
No, not really.
That's also OK with a lot of Republicans I know personally, who think for themselves and not some political party or religious organization. So your incessant demonizing of 'the left' is without merit. There are a lot of people on 'the Right' who do not have such bigotry.
You apparently don't know that the only thing the gay couple requested be put on the cake, which was not available "off the shelf" was the image of a rainbow. Now, please explain how that can be construed as being even remotely like asking for a representation of a murder? BTW, the idea that these cakes sit on shelves in a exclusive bakery like canned goods is pretty idiotic in itself.
While to rightwing bigots and haters it's a capital offense.
Is that the world you imagine you live in or wish for? Either way, that comment tells us something about you that you couldn't have intended to reveal.
The conversation didn't even get that far. According to the court record none of the specifics of the cake were discussed - as soon as the baker learned the cake was for a same-sex couple he denied them service. The baker admits that in his deposition.
It was the ethical baker who made the couple a cake for free which had a rainbow on it.
I don’t know where you got your information but it couldn’t be from the facts. Masterpiece cakeshop sells prebaked goods and expensive custom designed wedding cakes. People buy the cakes in this business for his artistry, not the taste. The designs for the custom cakes are from the owner’s head and he creates his cakes like artists paint pictures. The homosexuals requested a custom designed cake and did not say they wanted him to just stick a rainbow on it. These cakes can cost hundreds of dollars and the homosexuals went in there for something unique and creative.
The baker is claiming that the homosexuals were attempting to compel speech. The lower court decision is specifically premised on a determination that the homosexuals didn’t compel speech because they didn’t request any specific design or image (that means they didn’t request a rainbow or anything else). The issue is whether the law of Colorado is unconstitutional if it compels creative expression. The court has never addressed this issue and public accommodations issues do not normally involve an issue of compelled speech under the first amendment.
Arguably, the baker should be no more compelled to create an artistic work celebrating something that violates his religious beliefs than an artist can be compelled by a pedophile to create a sexually suggestive painting of naked boys.
Actually they have addressed that specific issue and consistently concluded that speech per se cannot be compelled. But that's not really the issue here since the denial of service was based solely on the fact that the cake was for a same-sex couple.
And contrary to your claim about "compelled speech under the first amendment" that's not exactly what Phillips is claiming (via the ADF hate group). Instead he's making two independent claims, one about the free exercise clause, the other about "compelled artistic expression". Both claims have been previously addressed and dismissed by SCOTUS, including Newman v Piggie Park. Religious claims in particular have never been a valid excuse to violate a public accommodations law, otherwise all such laws (including employment and housing protections) would be ineffective.
And note that this case is no different from a Southern Baptist like Phillips denying service because the couple was mixed-race, and his cult historically forbids such marriages.
Correct. Speech per se cannot be compelled......unless of course that baker sells the same sort of cake to other customers.
.
False. The owner is free to deny service unless the reason is based on a protected class like the race of the customer.
Side note.....I don't think any conservative has ever understood how public accommodation laws or protected classes work. That's why bigots always lose these cases.
Wrongo!!
This angry gay couple flew in from Maine and went directly to the bakery's location in Southwest Denver...a goodly distance of close to 50 miles. They were there on a mission, with malice aforethought, because Phillips had previously turned down a lesbian couple for a similar cake. They could have gone to a different bakery, but wanted to shame and sue Jack Phillips. By the way...he doesn't bake Halloween cakes either. He was willing to sell them a cake, but not willing to decorate the way they wanted.
The SCOTUS will probably rule in his favor.
Boy, howdy and amen to that. But it's true for almost every issue. They don't know their asses from a hole in the ground as the old saying goes. They are basically massive spouts of no-information.
So what was the reason this owner denied service?
If you are about freedom, then yes, you have to agree with the Christian Bakers and Gay Coffee Shop Owners refusing service to people they do not like. And, I agree with anyone refusing service because they do not like someone. If I was the person being refused service, I would go elsewhere and tell my friends to boycott them. That's what a FREE society does.
If you watched the video it was pretty clear that it was because they were spreading hate speech about gay folks exactly like him. He didn't even mention the graphic, offensive and misogynistic anti-abortion crap but if it were my business I would have kicked them out for both issues.
I agree up to the point where that "not liking someone" infringes a protected class.
That's false on almost every point. The couple was from Massachusetts not Maine, the bakery was recommended by a friend of one of their mothers who lived in the immediate area and had used the bakery before, and they really had no way of knowing about the previous incidents because no one had bothered to file a complaint.
It was a reporter who later learned that Phillips had violated the law several times before.......but had no problems at all making a cake celebrating a "dog wedding". And the female couple he had denied service to had ordered a batch of cupcakes, not a wedding cake per se.
.
Also it should be noted that even if the couple had gone there with "malice aforethought" as you claim, that's totally irrelevant from a legal and ethical standpoint. In fact it's exactly what the Freedom Riders and many other civil rights activists have always done - they've intentionally sat down at the whites-only lunch counter and in the whites-only section of the bus. Funny that you're whining about that even though it didn't happen in this case.
Yep, it's exactly like a traditional Southern Baptist like Phillips denying service because they were a mixed-race couple. Looks like the bigot will lose in court once again. He's lost every single court ruling to date.
That must be it.....those darn "activist judges" who apply the laws which the legislature passed.
When you start having protected classes is when you stop having a FREE society.
BTW...the gays may have hijacked the rainbow but the rainbow belongs to GOD and is a symbol of His promise never to destroy the earth by flood again.
Apparently YOU didnt watch the video! They were OUTSIDE in a public area and decided to take a coffee break. No literature was passed out in the coffee shop. He went OUTSIDE to get the literature.
Ironic that you dont find his graphic offensive rant offensive.
You would find yourself on the losing end of a lawsuit too!!
You cant just act like that in public and attack patrons.
Ironic that you are not talking about the muslim bakery owner who also refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding...I guess they just get a pass???
There are so many components here that defy logic - that liberal minions can't see their own intolerance and bigotry, that liberals don't find the one million human infants that die on the abortionist's table every year offensive. That a liberal could watch this video and think it was the Christians involved in hate speech.
That being said this is just the continuance of modern liberal fascism. They get their knickers twisted if a gay couple flies 2000 miles to try forcing a Christian baker to prepare a wedding cake and gets turned down - but it's okay with them if a gay shop owner throw Christians out specifically because they are Christians. Liberalism = Intolerance.
Intolerance was a hallmark of the Nazis, just as antifa violence is, just as the liberal abortion/final solution is. Liberalism = Fascism.
Liberals support freedom of speech - as long as you don't say anything they disagree with. They support freedom of religion - unless you're Christian or Jewish. They support the second amendment - as long as you don't actually want to own a firearm. Liberalism = Hypocrisy.
He may lose it now.
Actually, one of the Muslim bakers AGREED to make the cake, and the others refused -- because they don't make wedding cakes.
LOL
Being able to force a Christian to bend to their will and being able to kick them out of anywhere and everywhere is something liberals seem to want.
I am fine with what that owner did. His business, if he wants to ruin it by being a bigot let him. Word will get out soon enough and he probably won't have a business for long. The big difference here is that the Christian group will not cry about it and try to sue the guy. They will take their business elsewhere like any other intelligent person would.
But they sure seem to whine a lot when they are being required to follow the law, especially when running a business themselves.
Gordy,
Like I said I am fine with what he did and I am fine with what the baker did. If a business owner wants to put himself out of business in that way, then they are doing us all a favor anyhow. Get over your butt hurt and take your business somewhere else if you don't like it. I do however, find yet another example of liberal intolerance, and the fact that they want to have equality while denying it to anyone with an opposing view pathetic, ironic, somewhat amusing, and typical.
Yes - isn't that funny. Look at all those idiot Christians - thinking that they have civil rights, thinking that the Constitution applies to them too. Bunch of whiners.
Liberals line up to defend Kolon Copperdink when he takes a knee to disrespect the flag and millions of first responders, military vets and patriots......they talk about his rights to speak his mind, his right to have an opinion and demonstrate publically....... and those same inclusive and tolerant liberals mocked and vilified Tim Tebow when he did the exact same thing - except that he was honoring God when he did it......and the very same liberal mentality then drove the efforts to censure and eventually fire a high school coach for talking a knee before games when they discovered he was doing it to honor God.
Sure is funny how hypocritical liberals are. Tolerant and inclusive my butt.
Well said my friend, well said.
Perhaps. That's certainly what's happened to the bigoted bakers and bigoted florists, but I doubt that many of the coffee shop's customers support anti-choice loons or homophobes who spread hate speech.
You mean violate the law?
On that, we agree.
Why should I? Why should a business owner be allowed to violate the law?
Where are liberals denying equality to anyone? Tolerance of intolerance is complicity.
Yes, it certainly is, isn it not?
You said it, I didn't.
More like they tend to think the Constitution applies only to them.
Indeed. They sure whine a lot when they have to follow the law.
Are you saying he doesn't have a right? You don't have to agree with him, but he does have the right. BTW, nice Red herring there!
Equating liberals to Nazi's is rather beyond the pale. Not to mention a sweeping, and erroneous generalization.
Right, because the punishment for homosexuality under Sharia Law is DEATH! They would just as soon throw you off the roof of a building. Do you have proof a muslim made a GAY WEDDING CAKE???
We don't have sharia law in the USA. So I doubt this guy is in any danger of being executed under sharia law.
You're talking about Steven Crowder's hoax video? LOL. That was debunked long ago.
No wonder gullible conservatives are so easily fooled by it.....he doesn't mention that Michigan doesn't protect sexual orientation, or mention that none of the bakers which made wedding cakes denied him service even though they could legally do so. As Eginnj mentions, most of the bakeries he went to didn't even make wedding cakes or other custom cakes.
In fact every case in the US of a gay couple being denied service involves a business owned by Christian extremists who are Southern Baptists. No such case exists for Muslims or any other cult.
Except NOW he is changing his tune!!
An interesting report about Colin Kaepernick from CBS NFL insider Jason La Canfora on Sunday's "The NFL Today": Kaepernick will stand for the national anthem if an NFL team signs him this season.
So I guess black lives matter dont REALLY matter.... Oops! Too much flack...he walked it back already!
Once a loser...always a loser!
At least that's what the Jim Crow states said.
I agree - it was bad enough that they were distributing anti-gay pamphlets OUTSIDE the shop owned by a gay man. It would have been even worse if they were distributing anti-gay pamphlets INSIDE his shop.
Funny though that you think a gay man should ever serve hate-filled bigots who distribute anti-gay pamphlets.
I know, right? Why don't these gay folks know their place better? They need to learn to take abuse with a smile like black folks used to do in the confederate states. How arrogant of him to think that he could challenge a good "Christian" who was merely passing out hate literature which targeted gays.
The Jim Crow states weren't about allowing people to choose to not serve someone they didn't like. They were about actively attacking those they didn't like to the point where someone else had to step in to stop it. That is the same thing as a protected class due to the fact that the Jim Crow laws singled out a particular class. I am disabled, and one of the things I have advocated is to get rid of handicapped parking spaces by putting those same markings around EVERY parking space.
LOL. You might want to learn why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed and which states screamed the loudest. The CRA was the first federal public accommodations law.
By the way some of the very first claims challenging the CRA came from Southern Baptists exactly like these bigoted bakers and florists.......except the people they hated were blacks and mixed-race couples. See Newman v Piggie Park BBQ for the racist religious claims.
.
Most protected classes are traits common to all people, like race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin. There are only a couple which can't be scoped broadly, like veteran status and disabled status.
His language was far less harmful than the anti-gay hate speech they were peddling. He really was just giving them a small taste of their own medicine.
Funny that bible-babblers are so willfully ignorant about the horrific impact of their cult's homophobia.
Clearly what's being posted either confuses you or - best guess - presents arguments you can't deal with Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Oh for a chance to interview Kolon Copperdink.
"Why did you donate $25K to a cop killer?" "Why do you support a murderous dictator - Castro?"
"If the cause for which you've been kneeling was so important to you then why are you willing to sell it out for a job in football?"
I'm aware of that. I wasn't referring to you at all.
.
I suspect he had first-hand experience with anti-gay hate from Christians before. Most gay folks in the US have and I can't blame him one bit for his harsh reaction. Funny though that you think he should be polite in the face of hate speech designed to harm people like him.
Maybe a group of Satanists should start distributing pamphlets in front of their church.
Yes, just as the baker knew the couple was gay, seems that you want the law to apply one case and, not in another, if the baker had the right to refuse service to the gay couple then this coffee shop owner had a right to refuse service to these "Christians".
Oh, call the whaaabulance, people like you were all for it when it was a baker refusing service to a gay couple, now, you want it to be different.
They do and, he does but, the Christians have forgotten there is another thing out there in the law called the Civil Rights Act, which states that service cannot be refused because of race, sex, religion or, sexual orientation. There is also something that states that everyone has these same rights, including "due process under the law", which is what Capernick was protesting when he kneeled, (his first amendment right, which I served in the military to protect), Tebow was doing something which even Jesus said, should be done in private, not for the world to see, Tebow got what he wanted on this world, praise and, notoriety for what he did, he won't, according to Jesus, receive anything in Heaven for that.
Arguable, indeed. And that argument is settled when SCOTUS delivers its opinion.
So, it should have been no problem for the bigoted, phony-christian baker then.
Well, that's purely irrelevant. He knew these people were gay-bating, hatemongers. Why do you think they targeted his shop? But, I did watch and listen to the video and one of the shit-eating fake-christian, Westboro-types actually did inform the owner that he would be burning in hell. I believe that completely shreds the rightwing's (i.e., your claim) that they were just there for a cuppa coffee.
I admit, he did let the Westboro pig-*****ers get his dander up. But he did restrain a couple of either other patrons or employees from getting physical with the scumbags.
No. But since was just a ruse to show that some Muslims are bigoted as some Christians and not to actually make a case against and fight bigotry it's all a meaningless exercise. IOW, it was just a political stunt. Well, it's actually uglier than that, really. It's an attempt to trivialize and excuse it.
Good ol' tom. You never understood (or deliberately played dumb) or got a damn thing rightways on the NV and it's the same here. In baker's case he specifically informed the customers his decision to deny them service was based on their sexuality which violated the law. In the coffee shop incident, the owner made it clear he did not want them in his shop because of the activity they were engaged in around his neighborhood, including their vicious anti-gay crusade of which he was obviously a target (thus the reason they went into his shop--as a provocation). There is no law protecting such people from being turfed out of a business.
Oh? If this isn't whining, pissing and moaning we're witnessing here about this stunt to provoke a gay business owner then it's a damn good replica. What a joke that you people think you're invisible. Oh, and yeah; they won't sue because they wouldn't have a chance in hell (even though that would be the place for them) of winning.
Irrelevant. The real difference is that what the baker did was illegal.
Yes he did. That's why he's lost every court ruling unanimously.
.
Irrelevant.
.
He wouldn't sell them the same sort of wedding cake which he sold to all other customers. That's the problem.
.
False. He denied service before any of the specifics of the design were discussed.
The ifference is that homos are full of shit and can’t take what they dish out.
Every court has found it to be irrelevant and it's not even a claim made by the baker in his appeal to SCOTUS.
So good luck with that.
LOL. Your argument amounts to denying that the discrimination was based on sexual orientation, and then claiming that it was based on the relative sex of the spouse. That's illegal too.
And note that SCOTUS has explicitly stated that they don't distinguish between status and behavior in regards to sexual orientation.
That's an odd comment given that he was reacting to the hate speech which those Christian extremists were spreading.
He doesn’t have the right to control their speech and they didn’t say anything to him other than “I’d like a cup of coffee.” If homos have the right to their speech (in the form of behavior) and expect to be served by someone who finds their behavior loathsome, then religious people should have the right to be served as well. And if homos think otherwise, then they simply prove the point that they can dish it out but can’t take it. Yet another reason to justify Mississippi passing a law to protect religious people from discrimination.
Yes, I've discovered that many people often congregate in "pubic" places.
Was that a Freudian typo?
His own foulness turned his business into not just a “pubic” place but a cess pool. He’s a pig.
Of course not, at least not when that speech takes place on public property. Nor does he have any obligation whatsoever to serve dumb bigots who are spreading hate speech about people like him, regardless of where they were distributing that homophobic crap.
If he doesn’t have to serve dumb bigots, then dumb bigots shouldn’t have to serve homos.
Bummer for your ilk in the states in question that sexual orientation is protected but dumb bigotry is not.
What was done can be undone and you’re providing the reason to do it.
First you'll have to explain to the court how the law protects your "right" to distribute anti-gay and graphic anti-abortion materials on someone else's private property against the owner's wishes.
Didn't read the article did you? The were distributing out side the shop and went in for a break and a drink. When he just came up ti them.
Didn't read the article, eh?
Didn't get your......
I read the article and several other links to the exact same description which was apparently copied from the hate group's web site. And the only citations I found were on nutty right-wing sites like Breitbart, DailyCaller, The Blaze, etc. So at best it's a very one-sided story and a possible setup for a hoax video. There's no actual news coverage of this supposed incident at all.
But regardless the business is free to deny service to any customer or ask any customer to leave on almost any basis......just not one which infringes certain classes protected under state or federal law. So if you're going to claim "religion" as that basis you'll need to demonstrate that these folks were booted out solely because they were members of a particular cult and not due to their behavior or other reason like causing an unwanted disturbance outside his shop.
So good luck with your legal claim but you might first want to learn how these laws actually work.
By "article" you mean the only accounts for this spectacle that come from sympathetic rightwing garbage sites? Here's what really happened and we know this because it's a common tactic of groups like the Westboro Garbage who love to assault and provoke gay people among anyone else who calls out their despicable subhuman acts.
You really don't know history, do you? Homosexuality existed long before the bible -- in fact, it has existed since humankind has existed. And same-sex marriage also existed long before the bible, as did opposite-sex marriage.
still repeating your lies. Jesus created marriage of a man and a woman in the Garden of Eden. He has always prohibited all sex outside of marriage. A prohibition repeated by Noah after the flood
Easy enough, my brother, "the gay businessowner," can publicly share his own video accounting of the incident. Other than that, we run with what we have on these boards. (-:
While we can question everything, we do have to accept ". . .worth a thousand words" something too.
LOL.
What we have here is a failure to communicate between you and eginnj. She/he is referring to anthropology, a science, and you're using a fairy tale as a source and, even so, you seem to be a bit confused. As far as I can tell, there's no person named Jesus in Genesis. Or, maybe there is in your personal version of the bible and neither is there any reference to a marriage ceremony.
She refered to nothing except her own imagination.
So for you non-trinitarian "Christians" that means marriage must be only between a man and his transgender clone?
Sex with your clone seems a bit weird. Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
Hmmm....how could Jesus have created marriage in the Garden of Eden when he was never even born yet? And who did he take into the Garden of Eden after he was born to create such a marriage?
Methinks you are being a bit overly eager to make your Biblical point.
Don't knock the source if the story is true and correct. This a well known liberal trick.
Jesus created marriage of a man and a woman in the Garden of Eden. He has always prohibited all sex outside of marriage.
I can’t believe the level of stupidity that this place has devolved to. That statement is so dumb that I can’t even compare it to anything. It is off-the-charts-stupid for a non-religious forum. That garbage belongs in the holy roller group, or not on NT at all.
Hal....NT has not devolved to anything other than what is has always been, it is just some of the new people who have not yet found that out and are trying to shape it into what they want it to be. You and I and many others here know that will never happen. And, those who misrepresent their own faith beliefs but wish to preach it anyway are not going to change NT. The majority of people here are more intelligent than that.
As an agnostic & atheist I'm far from an expert on this but apparently there's an entire branch of evangelical loons who aren't trinitarians. I think the Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals are some and if you're familiar with pastor/accountant/lawyer/internationalbusinessexecutive/astronaut/submarinecommander/underwearmodel Larry Robinson from NV, he preached the same stuff too. From my perspective it's no more or less nutty than any other Christian cult.
Too bad; if you insist on continuing to post misinformation Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph] , I will continue to prove you wrong. Don't like it? Don't post in a public forum.
I'm sorry you are unaware that the doctrine that Jesus is God our creator is central to Christianity.
Deity of Jesus
The deity of Jesus is considered an essential doctrine and is a central non-negotiable belief within Christianity. Also known as the "divinity of Christ," this doctrine asserts that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God incarnate. As the apostle Paul stated, "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9; ESV).
"Now the Christian meaning of the term "deity of Christ" is fairly clear. The Christian believes that there is a personal God, Creator and Ruler of the universe, a God who is infinite, eternal and unchangeable. So when the Christian says that Jesus Christ is God, or when he says that he believes in the "deity of Christ," he means that that same person who is known to history as Jesus of Nazareth existed, before He became man, from all eternity as infinite, eternal and unchangeable God, the second person of the holy Trinity." J. Gresham Machen, What is the Deity of Christ?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-3,14
John 8:56-58 Jesus declares Himself to be YHWH
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Jesus is the creator
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence Colossians 1:15-18
Jesus is God and Savior
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself Hisown special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2:11-14
God took on human form in the person of Jesus
5 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.
6 Though he was God,he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being Philippians 2:5-7
Depends on what parts you read and what parts you ignore. The classical parts ignored by Catholics, et. al. are often in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For example, take the infamous Leviticus 20:13 ...
It just is a bit tough to defend the Bible as not being anti-gay with passages like this in it (and this is Yahweh speaking).
Not to be picky since I don't share your superstitions, but didn't your buddy Jesus say:
.
It sure sounds like he's saying that he isn't the great sky fairy.
Thanks for the lengthy sermon. I'm not a Bible reader, nor a Christian. Your preaching to me with all sorts of verses from your Bible does not change the fact that Jesus was not known to man until long after the Garden of Eden. Thus, they are presented to man as two different entities and should be referred to as such.
However, being as I have my own religious beliefs which are not based upon the Bible or any Christian faith, please refrain from any promoting of your own religious beliefs when addressing me.
Thank you.
People tend to create their own customized religions (whether they realize this or not). It is mostly based on confirmation bias. They hold that their general religion is good (bind it to the Golden Rule for example) and then only accept that which supports this view.
In result, some very naive interpretations arise. In my opinion the majority have a very limited understanding of their religion. They hold on to a few key principles and that is good enough for them.
The Bible might simply be words written by ancient men with pens pretending to be God.
Exactly.
I agree. I have seen this kind of thing myself. They claim the be a Member of a certain religious organization, but, they pick and choose only the parts of the basis of the religious doctrine and/or teachings to those that they feel most comfortable with or that suits their own preferred lifestyle, changing some here and there so that they feel they can still live the way they want to. All the while holding themselves up as true believers and passing their own half truths and/or lies off as gospel.
HYPERBOLE AND FACT TWISTING ALERT!!!
Of course not. Nobody is stupid enough to think that humanity began with Adam and Steve.
What lies? Eginnj stated facts!
That's nice. Prove it!
I thought the Flood occurred before Jesus' time? Besides, the Flood is just a silly myth and easily disproven.
Prove there's a god!
There sure seem to be many Christians that do. It's almost as stupid as believing there was some Great Flood caused by god.
Hmm! I can't think of any Christians that think it was Adam and Steve. Adam and EVE yes. Adam and Steve no.
"It's almost as stupid as believing there was some Great Flood caused by god."
You are aware that there are many other non Judeo-Christians traditions also have great flood stories also.
And you have some documented proof of this? If not, its just BS!
MARRIAGE??? Its a BIBLICAL TERM!
Stellar answer. Great positive lookout. You will observe that I follow what I believe to be the truth in these discussions and not so-called, "sides." Peace.
What I find funniest about statements like yours is that you seem to want gay folks to be with people they aren't even remotely attracted to. You also give no thought whatsoever to the second party......why would a gay or straight woman want to be with a gay man? Same issue with the genders reversed. That's a true injustice to both persons, and it's a guarantee for unhappiness and eventual divorce.
It's truly bizarre that so many people hold such beliefs and that they're so arrogant as to think other folks should obey such counterfactual and absurd dicta.
it doesn't really matter either way. It's still quite stupid regardless.
Yes, so? If anything, the Judeo-Christian version of the Flood was borrowed from similar stories from other cultures. The Epic of Gilgamesh being a prime example. But the key word there is "stories," as in that's all they are and nothing more.
Where is your proof marriage is solely biblical or religious in nature?
Of course not because humanity began with primates which were pre-verbal.
"But the key word there is "stories," as in that's all they are and nothing"
But you are also aware that many of those stories are based on actual or similar events right?
But they would be opposite sex primates or there would have been no humanity.
E.A Or what the Science world "believes " knows about " Mitochondrial Eve " and why it is not Steve :-)
That was an awesome PlayStation 1 game back in the day. Perhaps Sony should remaster that one?
That's an odd comment since homosexuality has been observed in all primates. Adam and Steve were obviously around even before mankind existed as a species, they just has no way of writing or speaking their names.
In fact while homosexuality has been observed throughout the animal kingdom, homophobia has only been observed in one species. It's quite clear which one is unnatural.
WRONG. Civil marriage predates your book of fairy tales by thousands of years, and same-sex marriage also predates that book.
In fact the Adam & Eve myth makes no mention of marriage at all, nor according to that mythology was there a state to issue a license or enforce the marriage contract much less to manage a divorce. It's also not the sort of relationship which most ethical people would consider a real marriage, but rather it was a master-slave relationship where the man owned the woman.
Perhaps that's what truly terrifies the bible-babblers about same-sex marriage, the fact that it's fundamentally premised on a relationship of equals? They've already lost almost all the other trappings of a true "Christian" marriage....they have few if any coverture laws left and husbands are no longer free to beat or rape their wives. Even divorce can now be initiated by either the master or his slave! If gays can marry how is a homophobic, patriarchal and misogynistic True Christian supposed to feel superior to anyone? Heck.....even mixed-race couples can marry today. That must really burn a True Christian's britches.
"Civil marriage predates your book of fairy tales by thousands of years"
Can you prove your statement? Were yiu around then? While the ceremonies and rituals may predate the Bible, can you prove that Tala and Og the cave people did not engage in a religious ceremony for bonding? Can you show any documentation that shows there was no religious mariage prior to "civil" society even existing?
And no one has ever seen two same sex primates reproduce. Since they can’t reproduce, humanity could not begin with two same sex primates.
Homophobia is a slur and exits only on the tongue of the person uttering it.
What does reproduction have to do with anything? Especially when it comes to matters like equal rights including marriage? And homosexuals are capable or reproduction. Homosexuality does not equal infertility.
You're referring to mere reproduction, but you have no way of knowing the sexual orientation of either progenitor. Regardless, homosexuality and bisexuality have been part of mankind throughout our existence as a species. It's funny that your ilk seems unaware of that......it seems your understanding of evolution is quite simplistic.
.
LOL. If homophobes don't want to be accurately described as homophobes all they need to do is stop being homophobic. It works for racists and misogynists much the same way.
Key phrase there is "based on." That is not the same as actual. Certain movies are "based on" actual events. But there is clearly artistic license taken as well. The Flood myth is really no different. You can say the Flood myth was "based on" actual regional flooding, which can occur with storms or overflowing river banks, much like we see today. But to think this means that the whole world was flooded (according to the myth) is quite preposterous. And there is no evidence to support such a position either!
"Regardless, homosexuality and bisexuality have been part of mankind throughout our existence as a species."
You been around since the beginning of our existance? You have any proof that it has/was accepted part of society and in honid groups prior to written histories?
As if assholes lik the coffee shop owner does like being called an asshole all they need do is stop being an asshole.
Are you claiming that even though homosexuality and bisexuality have been observed in all extant primates and throughout the animal kingdom that there were no gays in early hominids? What would be your basis for that claim? Maybe it was just a few thousand years ago that your sky fairy touched its magic wand to the planet and turned everyone gay.
I know, right? How strange for a gay dude to take offense at bible-babbling morons spreading anti-gay hate speech.
Are you suggesting it hasn't? Or that it suddenly magically appeared in societies when written records were developed? That's like saying fire didn't exist until man learned how to make one.
And just when have just two men or just two women ever reproduced. No a preoptranssexual couple does not count
"But to think this means that the whole world was flooded"
To those that started the stories it was the whole world. Societies that have flood stories also come from all corners of the world including North America.
Apparently it rains in many parts of the world.
If you read the chain, you’ll see that it is in response to how humanity began.
Sounds like you've confused marriage with an irrelevant religious ritual like "holy matrimony".
FYI, your cult wasn't even involved in most marriages until after the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s.
So has pedophilia, incest, beastiality etc. That doesn’t make them acceptable.
I wish you luck, Larry preaches to everyone. Most of us who know Larry just ignore it.
Humanity began via evolution. That's a well established fact and lets be honest, it's FAR more likely than some magical being of which there is ZERO proof, snapping it's fingers and, "poof", everything existed.
Does that also apply to the Christian bigot that couldn't be bothered to make a damn cake?
Marriage may be a biblical term, but that doesn't man that people were not married before there was a bible.
Thanks for the heads up. But, I don't hold with people who feel the need to pontificate their religious beliefs onto me, as I have my own. I respect the beliefs of others, and I ask that they respect mine. I have nothing against anyone preaching to others, but, I have the right to object their doing so to me. (smile)
Whatever it began with, it’s clear that you need a male and female to reproduce. That’s all I said.
I think those are mostly behaviors found in the Duggar family and various Christian cults like the Southern Baptists who have made Texas safe for those who like to rape their sheep.
The exmayor of Seattle, a former mayor of Portland and a anotber former Portland mayor, Oregon governor and secratary of transportation are all pedophiles but are not members of the Duggar family, Southern Baptists nor do they live in the great state of Texas. They are, however, all democrats and progressives.
"Marriage" actually comes from the French but of course many other cultures which predate the bible had different words for the same idea, including the Chinese and the Egyptians.
I think what confuses the bible-babblers is first that they often use the same word to refer to a legal contract and a religious wedding, and second that they seem unaware that their cult had no real involvement with marriage until after about 1550. That's because they're historically illiterate.
By your reasoning, they’d all be acceptable behavior and perhaps even immutable characteristics.
Not to argue or belabor the point, but you completely lacked understanding of what I posted. Jesus is the same God who created all things as described in the book of Genesis. He is same God who appeared to Abraham and Moses and Jacob. This is the central teaching of Christianity that you apparently missed when you attended Christian churches
He took on human form 2000 years ago in the person of Jesus. Jesus the YHWH of the Old Testament) has always been God, always existed, has no beginning or end
You limit Him to only His physical appearance 2000 years ago.
thank you for polite discussion
You call pushing for laws to deny them their civil rights "respect"? You have a funny idea of what passes for "respect".
And I don't think gays really care about what you condone. They only care about being treated equally.
BTW, what is a gay lifestyle?
FYI, business owners CAN refuse service, but they can't do it based on protected criteria (like religion, sex, race, or -- in some states -- sexual orientation). Being a hateful bigot is not protected.
Yet homosexuality has existed since humankind has existed.
WRONG. Civil marriage existed in all of the ancient civilizations, including Rome, Greece, Egypt, Sumer, Mesopotamia, etc., and our own Native Americans. ALL of those civilizations predate that book of fairy tales, which was only written about 6,000 years ago, and humanity -- and marriage -- existed prior to that.
No they haven’t. It takes two opposite sex partners to create anybody else who claims to have a same sex attraction.
So has incest, rape, murder and cannibalism. Are tou suggesting that society should accept those actions also?
Yes, they have; hieroglyphs have been found verifying the existence of homosexuals in ancient civilizations.
Who is harmed by homosexuality? It seems to me that you don't know anything about legal consent, and causing harm.
FYI, no one is demanding your acceptance.
The Bible was created, (put together), after Jesus died, some three hundred years after. Alexander the Great, a very good leader and, warrior and, who lived several thousand years before Christ was homosexual.
Wrong date on the creation of the Bible, the first edition came out three hundred years after the death of Christ so, less than two thousand years since it's creation.
Wasn't the question now was it? Nice try at ducking it however.
No ? I guess that is why the gays femand that we accept gay marriage. I guess that iscwhy they single out and prosecute business people that choose not to do business with them. I guess that is why the crunchy granola types in California passed legislation the unconstitutionally restricts my free speech rights.
Noooo! You are demanding at all!/s
Well the shop owner can be thankful for that. He is one hateful bigot!
I think she was referring to EVOLUTION, which is NOT imaginary, like the bible.
And YOU were there to witness the invisible "man in the sky" create a man and a woman in the fairy tale garden?
How did that prove your point? The coffee shop owner did not kick them out because they are Christian; he kicked them out because he found their speech and actions offensive and disruptive to his business.
Just like the Masterpiece Cake Shop owner, and the Sweet Cakes owners, and Elane Photography in New Mexico, etc.... They are all hateful bigots.
YOU are the one who brought up incest, rape, murder, and cannibalism -- all of which cause harm to others, without their consent. Now answer the question.
No one is demanding that anyone "accept" same-sex marriage. They are only demanding equal treatment. Your acceptance -- or that of anyone else -- is irrelevant, except to you.
Wow, I guess all those bigoted owners should just be allowed to continue breaking the law.
How have your free speech rights been restricted? Clearly you are here, sharing your bigotry with everyone, and no one is dragging you off to jail.
"he kicked them out because he found their speech and actions offensive and disruptive to his business.,
Going into the store quietly and politely ordering coffee and sitting down at a table was offensive and diruptive? The bigotted store owner was the one being offensive and disruptive to his business by his lunatic ranting and raving.
That is false. And FYI, homosexuals ARE taxpayers.
Really? Like what? AIDS is now an overwhelmingly heterosexual disease worldwide.
According to the APA:
Then the same must be true for many heterosexuals, because more heterosexuals engage in anal sex than homosexuals.
You claim that you don't "hate" gays, yet you constantly call them "immoral". That indicates hate. And when did you become the one who decides what is moral or immoral for everyone?
That's nice. Prove it!
But you can't, because sin does not exist, except in fairy tales.
No not like them. I haven't seen anything that said that any of them went into an insane lunatic rant that the coffee shop proprietor did. Not only is he a bigot, he seems to be crazy also.
But they were not disrupting his business. They didn't even know he was gay until he started his little rant.
Yes they were distributing Christian dogmatic literature that was decidedly political in nature. (and anti LGBQ) on the streets of Seattle. the decided to take a break and entered the coffee shop for just that purpose and only that purpose. (that's what the purpose of the coffee shop is for) One of the shop owners staff, who is also gay, brought one of their pamphlets into the store and gave it to the shop owner.
That is when the shop owner ordered them out. and went on his hateful and disgusting rant. (I think his disgusting rant was to drive them away)
How is that any different than the flowers shops? the bakeries? The Christian group hasn't decided what they are going to do yet, but there is a response coming. and I believe it's first going to be a complaint to the equal rights commission up here in ultra liberal Seattle.... and from there to the wonderful state offices that invoked to law to run a florist out of business.
And if what most expect will happen, actually happens, then the issue is perfected for the federal courts.
But of course we have an attorney general that is being groomed for the next governors seat on the democratic ticket. Everyone thinks he is a shoo in....
Lets expose him for what he actually is....
But of course he is claiming that he has beaten the president in federal court five times now.....
Not hardly, but lets not let facts get in the way of false campaigning....
This is a backlash case.... Gay rights in Washington has come so far that all other peoples rights take a back seat to it....
Sin is a silly religious concept and your statement is just mere belief with no proof.
I'm not denying that these westboro clones got kicked out. But the idea they were just an innocent bunch of well-intentioned citizens just wanting to enjoy a cup of coffee in their favorite gay coffee shop is utter pigshit.
What is "sin"? Is that one of your cult's peculiar rituals or something?
I seriously doubt anyone cares what you "accept." No one asked for your acceptance and you're free to hate gays.
.
I know, right? Bummer that those mean gays persecute businesses which break the law. It's so unfair!
That's probably what the gay owner objected to, the fact that they were distributing hate speech designed to harm people exactly like him and his employee. It'd be like expecting a black owner to serve a group which was distributing KKK brochures. I'm a straight white guy and I wouldn't serve either group.
.
Unlike those cases, what the coffee shop owner did isn't against the law since no protected class was infringed. I guess that's the biggest difference.
Maybe you need to learn how public accommodation laws work?
.
I think you're right but not in the way you intended. It's a example that the minorities who Christian extremists target for harm are no longer putting up with that vile crap. That's especially true in progressive states, but it's even happening in the confederate states and bible-babble states. In other words the Christian Taliban is losing the war they launched.
Concepts pushing God said "this or that" are ruses. The very concept of "God'" is a false limitation of the creative motive. Religion is a perfect example of the abject failure of human thought to express the unknowable in universal terms. Such human activity is pure pretense and as real as seeing faces in clouds or or Elvis in a dirty pair of socks crumpled on the floor.
He seemed offended by the hate literature they had been distributing in his neighborhood.....hate lit which targeted people like him. Funny that you think he should now be serving the dumb bigots.
That's odd....my daughter hasn't harmed anyone that I know of.
So? That is there right. The have the right if free speech as anyone else.
As a business owner that is open to the public and as such is required to provide the services of his business to the public. The church people are members if the public. They created no incident or disturbance inside tbe store. They just wanted some coffee or other drinks that are offered tbere. They did not even ask for special customized drinks. The one that caused the scene in the store was tbe the hateful and bigotted owner.
As a public accomidation he has to serve all members of society. If he did not want to he should open a private coffee club that serves members only.
I have to agree, this topic is about a coffee shop owner doing what a Christian baker did and, the Right is whining about it, well, if it's good for one group to do it then it is good for another group to do it.
What I'm going to do is post the christian side that was heard on the radio monday here in Seattle...
then the State Human rights commissioners position which was also heard on the radio tuesday...
And then the Coffee shops position heard today on the same radio program here in Seattle.
I think it's going to surprise everyone.....
(still waiting on the interview from today being posted, then I will post all three here in the order they were done)
The Gay coffee shop owner is going to disagree with a lot of you..... GOOD FOR HIM!
E.A May I?
Not at all!
Regional floodings, such as along rivers, sure. A world wide flood? Not so much.
Too bad there is no scientific evidence of such an event to collaborate the myth. If anything, science disproves the concept of a "great flood."
I'm more interested in evidence and facts, not your idea of "truth" or imaginary puzzles.
The Christians were not discriminated against.
Harassing customers by passing out literature in a business will always get people kicked out of a business. They were not there to buy coffee so why would the owner let them stay? They should have stayed on the sidewalk-street here they belong unless they intend to buy something.
Again you did not read the article either did you? They were not passing out any literature in the coffe shop and went in to take a break and have a drink.
It doesn't seem like any of these folks supporting bigotry have read the article. Instead they just make things up. Very progressive...
It doesn't matter one bit whether it's in the coffee shop or outside where it's driving away other customers.
"It doesn't matter one bit whether it's in the coffee shop or outside where it's driving away other customers."
Dont make things up. There is no indication anywhere that shows any customers were driven away.
The owner doesn't need any evidence whatsoever for that. My point is that such a concern is a perfectly valid business reason to deny service, particularly given the set of facts which includes signs with graphic images of aborted fetuses. Even the mere fact that they were demonstrating near his shop is sufficient cause to deny service.
The part that you're missing is that the owner doesn't actually need a "legitimate" reason to deny service. But what he can't do is use an illegitimate reason like the race, sexual orientation or religious affiliation of the nutty and bigoted cultists.
What I wonder is why the proselytizing group were passing out pamphlets in front of this particular store. We don't have all the facts here. It may be that they knew that the store owner had a reputation already that they opposed and their being there was a form of protest, and they taunted the owner by coming into the store. Too many things we don't know here that are relevant to any discussion being realistic.
I agree. There are far too many questions yet to be answered.
There's a reason that we don't know any details about this story. Look at the rightwing garbage outlets putting it out.
I really don't appreciate the use of political put downs in discussions with me. I think we are both adult enough to converse without them. Thank you.
I'm unaware of the incident but I do generally support BLM and their civil rights protests. I'm not at all surprised that you oppose them.
.
It's the content of their anti-gay hate speech which mattered to the owner. Why should he sit still for people who spread hate about him and other gay folks? Christian extremists must be unusually clueless to think that gay folks, blacks, women, Jews, Muslims or the other minorities they target for hate are going to continue taking that crap quietly.
Bravo, Raven Wing. That was a perfect reply to Atheist - what was deserved.
No problem, HOC, we're good now. (Smile)
Don't we all just love reverse discrimination?
He has special rights, of a special group
So he's a Christian extremist? They're the only folks in the US who demand special rights and privileged status.
I'd have no problem with this if the lives and businesses hadn't been ruined because they refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. Libs started this, so they have no one to blame but themselves. Time for them to get a taste of their own medicine!
Actually the "libs" merely filed a complaint with the state. In all of these bakery and florist cases it's the actions of the owner which have harmed their own business. That includes both the original violation of the law and their subsequent illegal or foolish actions. If they had either followed the law or taken remedial action there would have been no fine and no adverse public reaction.
Yep...I'm just wondering if he'll suffer the same fate as the Christian bakers....I doubt it.
Hi Peach. Glad to see another one of the good newsviners here.
You are correct, there should be a law against discrimination......oh wait there is, it's called the Civil Rights Act. However, Christians think it doesn't apply to them, think Indiana.
“I’m not going to be saved by anything. I’d f**k Christ in the a**. Okay? He’s hot.”
Lol. He’s a little scrawny imo, and he looks like the kind of guy who smells like BO.
I don't think Jesus is available anyway. Apart from being dead, he and John were a couple.
You are in for a real awakening when you die and must face Jesus who reigns from His throne in Heaven. Jesus is God.
That's nice. Prove it!
These comments are disgusting.
Liberal hypocrisy and theophobia generally are disgusting.
Nope. It's Orwellian.
I used it to bash bigots who happened to be liberals. Was I not clear enough for you?
I'm not in charge of the English language. I just use what's available. Is there some abridged dictionary that you feel we should limit ourselves to? That sounds ridiculous.
I'm not afraid of God because he doesn't exist, but you can make it up and worship it if you want to. You have the constitutional right to worship a rusty hubcap and 2 broken Pez dispensers if you want.
All I demand is that you don't ask me to take part, to live by your religious ideas or to subsidize your religious nuttery.
"I'm not afraid of God "
I would suggest that you ,in reality, are afraid of God. You are also afraid of religion. If you were not you would not be so uptight about seeing or hearing anything about religion or God. You would not bet so adamant about jeeping either anywhere near you.
It's rational to fear superstitious people - particularly the anti-abortion nuts who murder women and their doctors, or the anti-LGBT loons who have been known to lynch and shoot gays and transgender folks. It's also rational to be concerned about the sharia laws these nuts try to have the government enforce.
But it's entirely irrational to fear one's imaginary friend.
Why would an atheist be afraid of religion or god when there is absolutely no empirical evidence that god exists? Religion is merely the masses of gullible people who refuse to learn and use logic. These people would rather be lead around by the nose by con-men selling a product that they will never have to deliver then to learn how to think on their own.
I don't want religion near me because I find ignorance insulting and I don't want religion mixed in any way shape or form with the power of government because when those two ideas intermingle people always lose their rights and die.
I am not an Atheist, but, I do agree 100% with this part of your comment.
applephobia?
Religion helped civilize society by undergirding law with morality and a responsibility to a higher power. Removing it from government is not a panacea as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot proved when they removed religion so they had one less impediment to murdering millions.
LOL. Maybe the Christian extremists are losing that "war" because they share the same odious views as any other middle eastern religious extremist?
The funny part is that these bigots are now whining that normal people don't like dumb bigots.
While I can also agree with the rest of your comment, this part I cannot. I have no issues with the true Christian faith, but, there are those who call themselves Christians who do not truly believe in that faith and merely use it to promote their own agenda. By trying to force their own objectives on others using the word God or Christian they create nothing but divisiveness and chaos in the world and then blame those who know what their prime aim is and disagree with it.
Yet, instead of true Christians standing against those who use their faith to promote their own unChristian agenda, they seem to encourage simply because they call themselves Christians. IMHO, true Christians should first stand up to and cast out the false Christians and regain the purpose of their faith.
Just my own opinion.
Why should the First Amendment's guaranteed right of free speech be limited to not discussing religion or just not discussing your religion?
Religion is not about morality or we wouldn't have priests keeping kids as sex toys or ministers living in mansions while their fleeced flock borders on being homeless. The bigots in the American southeast were bolstered by southern baptist thought.
Hitler used protestant Christian religion to support fascism.
Stalin studied to be a priest before he left the seminary.
While I enjoy our conversations, I would appreciate it if political put downs were not part of them. Thank you.
In fact I can do better than that......I can show you a video of an overwhelmingly Christian nation where Eastern Orthodox priests in the Republic of Georgia recently led a violent mob of 20,000 rabid Christians who were trying to stone to death 50 gay rights activists:
And note that the Georgian government knows who the leaders and many of the perpetrators were but has done nothing to apprehend or charge them:
That's just one example of many. American evangelicals not only have their own history of violence against gays but they've been supporting Uganda's "kill the gays" bill and many other extreme anti-gay bills around the world. And that's before you consider the very long and violent history of persecution of gays by Christians.
He used both the Lutheran and Catholic churches for that but Hitler himself was a lifelong Catholic.
And I disagree with your generalization that the "far left" is conducting a "war on Christianity". We on the left have been conducting a war on those so-called "Christians" who use their so-called "Christianity" to justify and promote their agenda, namely bigotry and other civil rights infringements. You are correct that people should be free to practice their religion as long as they do no harm to others and stay within the law, but people like the bigoted bakers in Colorado and Oregon, as well as the bigoted photographers in New Mexico, and others like Kim Davis in Kentucky, as well as the anti-choice crowd ARE harming others and using their so-called "religion" to justify it. The Supreme Court has already ruled numerous times that that is unconstitutional.
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about southerners.
I agree that not all Christians, or any other religious group should be dealt with a broad brush because some who use their faith to justify their own wrong doing. It seems to be 'the thing to do' by many, and in doing so, they are themselves guilty by wrongly accusing all just because of those who they deem unclean, unworthy or anti-whatever they strongly believe it on a personal bases.
Words like some, many, a few, or such in reference to those they accuse, they just whip out the 'ol broad brush of hate to label anyone they don't agree with as being the whole.
I refuse to label all Christians with those who are not true Christians, based upon their own words, deeds and treatment of others. They think they are so clever and can hide their true intentions, but, they don't realize that not everyone in the world is blind, deaf or brain dead and can see what they truly are and their intent.
However, that is my own opinion.
WRONG. He never renounced Catholicism, and even got himself confirmed in the church as a teenager.
As do I, and look forward to many more. And I am sure that we can have meaningful conversations on all sorts of topics, including politics without the handles and labeling. For me, it just degrades the conversation.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration. (smile)
That's why I use the phrase "Christian extremist" to refer to the ones who seek to demonize or persecute other folks. Unfortunately today that includes nearly all of certain cults like the SBC whereas 50 years ago it might have been only 75% of them.
I avoid phrases like "true Christian" because it's a fallacy .
I've been conducting a war on Christian sharia law and the Christian persecution of various minorities. Sounds like you folks are losing.
2 Peter 2:
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
>>
Raven, this kind of problem is age old. Because true Christians are inclined to snatching spiritual evil out by its short-hairs and casting it down. Physical evil such as we find in the natural order of this world is protected by many great and impressive laws (see: Constitution and U. S. Law.)
I don't by any stretch condone breaking the law, but, when Christians who are true to their faith hear/see people making erroneous statements that puts the Christian faith in a bad light, they can, and should refute it, which they can do without breaking any law or infringing on any of their civil rights.
Cleaning out ones' own closet should come before pointing fingers at anyone else's.
I truly believe that there are far more Christians who are true to their faith than otherwise. They live their loves according to the teachings of their chosen faith. Their intent is not to reform anyone or shove their own religious beliefs down anyone's throat, do not engage in preaching to others unless asked, and do their best to help others in need. The show respect and tolerance to those who are of different beliefs. I know this as a fact as I have many Friends who are of the Christian faith, and they do not disparage others who do not believe as they do.
Having discussions with them regrading our different beliefs for me is a true learning experience and we can do so without hostility and hard feelings. We respect each other's right to our own beliefs, culture and traditions. And...they too, are adverse to those who use their Christian faith to do harm to others or discriminate against them.
That is true. However, freedom of religion in the United States allows churches, including faux churches (kingdom of the cults) to practice the double-edged sword of sharing their communal messages. Even going so far as receiving state and federal non-profit statuses for their efforts. I, many others push-back as best we can find, but the Constitution is unyielding: The legal recourse against hate/bad speech is good/great speech.
Who can drive any grouping of false prophets and teachers away by force, anymore? We talk and let the Spirit do its perfect work.
No, it's not. You mistake the far left's war on Christian sharia law (as Skrekk likes to call it, which is VERY accurate) for being anti-Christian. It is simply not true, but not surprising that you cannot comprehend that.
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Hitler 1941
I agree 100%.....some of them are in my own family.
My only point was that "True Christian" is a logical fallacy. It doesn't take much to be a Christian apart from an assertion that you are one and perhaps some kind of belief in the Jesus myth. Apart from that every flavor of Christianity says that they're the true ones and all the others are fake.
You don't have to use force. I have never advocated that. Standing up to them does not need to involve any use of force, intimidation or denying then their right to free speech. It is openly refuting their lies and misrepresentations. There is nothing against the Constitution against such action that I know of, there is it also free speech.
Education is the biggest tool against lies and ignorance. And education is the thing that people like that hate the most, as it robs them of their ability to fool others.
Just my thoughts.
I can't believe anyone could possibly believe Hitler was actually a practicing Catholic as an adult. . Honestly, you yourself can't possibly believe a hearsay statement attributed to Hitler after his death amounts to anything compared to the mountains of evidence comprising his public statements and actions, not to mention the contemporaneous recordings of his confidantes. It's the equivalent of Hitler Birtherism.
For one tiny example, here's Goebbels impressions of Hitler's religion:
n 1937, Goebbels noted Hitler's approval of anti-Christian propaganda and the show trials of clergy. Hitler's impatience with the churches, wrote Kershaw, "prompted frequent outbursts of hostility. In early 1937 he was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction', and that the Churches must yield to the "primacy of the state", railing against any compromise with "the most horrible institution imaginable". [14] In his entry for 29 April 1941, Goebbels noted long discussions about the Vatican and Christianity, and wrote: "The Fuhrer is a fierce opponent of all that humbug". [15]
In 1939, Goebbels wrote that the Fuhrer knew that he would "have to get around to a conflict between church and state" but that in the meantime "The best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a 'positive Christian'." [78]
In another entry, Goebbels wrote that Hitler was "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian." [80] [81] Goebbels wrote on 29 December 1939: [82]
Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had "expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity." [83] Hitler, wrote Goebbels, saw the pre-Christian Augustan Age as the high point of history, and could not relate to the Gothic mind nor to "brooding mysticism". [79]
The diaries also report that Hitler believed Jesus "also wanted to act against the Jewish world domination. Jewry had him crucified. But Paul falsified his doctrine and undermined ancient Rome
If those priests practiced their religion, then they wouldn’t be homosexual in the first place.
Read Mein Kampf where he tells you just what he thinks about Christianity. In fact, it reads like some of the theaphobes on this website wrote it.
And then he substituted Marxism for religion.
HOC...thank you for clarifying your thinking. I am not at all trying to change the way you address others, just myself. You are free to respond to others in whatever manner you feel is necessary to make your point, just don't use those terms with me. That is all I ask.
I think I am able to get my point across with you and still not use those kind of terms. If not, then feel free to ask for clarification.
Thank you dear Friend. (smile)
LOL!!! Yes, I agree. (smile)
I can agree with that. During the time I was visiting various religious Christian denominations, their spiel was that if you were not one of them you were not worthy of God's graces and were going to Hell. And they were appalled by Cherokee religious beliefs.
The only place that I did not find that kind of prejudice was at a Jewish synagogue. They welcomed me and my beliefs, and we had many very interesting discussions of both beliefs and learned from each other. Even though I never joined as a Member, I was never treated as an outsider. I will always be grateful for their kindness.
I do try and will continue to do so. On one hand what we face are religious dominionists and conservatives working without consciences; on the other hand, the secularists are lofting myth, superstition, and fable "bombs" at anyone not holding to standard scientific criteria.
Raven, it will not be easy work. We will need your help. Add your interesting truth too. I really enjoy it when you do. (-:
Thank you for your very kind words, calbab. I do my best to to refute the lies and misrepresentations when and where I can. That is part of the education process as well. It is natural that they would resort to strawman retorts, threats and intimidation to try to maintain their hold on the mindless and/or uneducated people they are able to fool as much as they can. And there will always be those who are willing to close their eyes to the truth. But, there are so many more who will eventually see them for what they are and turn away from them. Without the sufficient support of the sheep they need to spread their lie and misrepresentations, they would not be able to continue to exist. And like many others who have tried to walk the same path and failed, they too will soon lose any real power.
Just my take on it.
Where and when have Christians been refused to practice their religion when others have the right to practice their religion?
Please learn the vast and obvious difference between the strict separation of church and state and the US being an atheist nation.
Pedophiles aren't homosexuals. Pedophiles are aroused by children. An adult who is homosexual is attracted to adults of the same sex.
Atheists and others aren't afraid of god or religion, so stop calling us theophobes. I am an atheist because there is no proof that any god exists. That stance is based on logic and not fear.
Just be advised that secularists are the ones defending everyone's religious liberty in the legal realm just as they've always done.
And in medical and scientific contexts they're also the ones defending facts and evidence rather than superstition.
I detect a beauty in you and I get the sense that it radiates from your sincerity and wisdom. Feel free to set the record straight appropriately. Keep sharing the good stuff! It happens somewhere on the planet everyday, even right now in the dead of night, that someone is blessed, lifted, defended, and improved by something we write.
We must all remember to be on our best possible behavior - we may never know who all are reading and being affected by our 'notes'!
I gave you a vote based on your clarifying statement about homosexual vs. pedophile. As to the word, "theophobia" there is room for debate. It may be beyond the scope of this topic, nevertheless. I base my statement on an understanding that religion and spirituality are more holistic then the average Atheist allows for, at least oftentimes in these articles.
Thank you for your most kind words, calbab. And I agree with you regarding how others may see our words and how they may affect them in their own thoughts. I am a firm believer that even when we are speaking from the heart it will resonate with others who may learn from us. As you say, we should each make an effort to speak with sincerity and without malice with one another so that what others learn from us will help them better understand.
"It does not require many words to speak the truth" - spoken by Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce.
Only because the local cops intervened and rescued the activists. Those cops were also very lucky not to be killed by the stone-throwing mob of 20,000 rabid Christians, but apparently some were seriously injured.
The incident does show how Christians behave when they aren't constrained by secular government.
My friend that is a over-generalization. There are many religious and spiritual persons and groups who defend the religious liberties of all people of good will and faith. One quick example: Is William J. Barber II, a Protestant minister and political leader in North Carolina, who runs the Moral Mondays protests. Another, is the national protests on the Muslim ban, protests on Women's issues, gun violence, etceteras. In the throngs of people out there you can not possibly except any class of citizen of good will and faith from supporting the causes!
Science and medicine. Surely everyone of us in this room has been treated by a medical-scientists or several more who attends religious services regularly. The Churches are well-supplied with professionals from all walks of life. One stand out: Dr. Francis Collins, Human Genome Project Director and confirmed Believer.
(I am drained. I'm out. Good night - Room!
)
In fact those folks are secularists like the members of Americans United, most of whom are believers of various cults from Judaism to Islam to Catholicism to Baptist.
.
Sure, but the sciences in general have a disproportionate percentage of atheists & agnostics for obvious reasons. And even some atheists attend church, like a friend of mine who is a physics professor and a deacon at his church.
It does show my utter contempt for anyone who seeks to have our secular government enforce their nutty cult's codes, as Christian extremists in Mississippi, North Carolina and many other red states have been doing.
I was thinking of the fruit, which is why I didn't capitalize the word.
I love it. Thank you for sharing with me, us.
The only people who are afraid of god are the people in the pews on Sunday morning. They praise him to gain his favor instead of the supposed retribution. Atheists and others don't fear God because there is absolutely no proof that God exists.
Not all are secularists, and who takes stock of numbers anyway on such matters? It is enough to agree to agree sometimes, methinks.
That belief is proof that Hilter was still a Christian. An atheist or a member of another belief system wouldn't put any value in the Bible or another religious tome.
My views only offend those southerners who are bigots. If you were triggered then that is your problem.
Uganda was killing gays, not throwing them off roof tops, but dead is dead no matter the method
Please don't make sweeping generalizations like this.. and try to remember Godwin's Rule.
You seem to erroneously assume all Christians share your anti-gay views. In my experience most Christians aren't extremists like you and the bigots pamphletting the coffee shop are. And most Christians definitely don't think the state should be enforcing the anti-gay, anti-black, anti-female or anti-crustacean sharia laws of your bible. Most Christians in the US support the Establishment clause but you and the other extremists here obviously don't.
.
LOL. Sounds like you need to talk to the Christians in Mississippi who just passed a law which gives special rights and privileged status to anti-LGBT cults. You'll also need to talk to the the many Christians over the centuries who have passed laws condemning gays to death, imprisoning them, torturing them with lobotomies and electroshock "therapy", banning them from teaching or government employment, banning them from marriage and adoption, and even giving denying them the same tax treatment as all other persons. You should also talk to the Christian families who drove their gay kids to suicide, and talk to the gays whose Christian cult encouraged them to marry the wrong gender.
At best Shep you sound extremely naive about what gays have experienced because of Christianity and the hatred it has preached for them ever since Thomas Aquinas.
That's the main reason. The other is because if it actually did exist and the behavior attributed to it was a fact then it's a rather pathetic creature which deserves scorn not praise, much less "worship". Another aspect is the truly offensive and unhealthy master-slave relationship inherent in the concept of worship. Mankind should be mature enough by now to have grown out of slavery, regardless of whether sky fairies actually exist.
You need to educate yourself on this topic since I'm not going to waste more time recounting all the folks who were subjected to sodomy laws, Colorado's Amendment 2, the "lavender scare" from the 1950s-1980s which purged gays from federal and state employment, much less the brutal persecution of gays from the Spanish Inquisition through the Holocaust. It's all a matter of historical record, one which you willfully and naively ignore. But if you want to learn about some of the recent history try this amicus brief which the DOJ compiled.....it includes a good summary starting on pg 13 of the pdf:
And start at the bottom of pg 252 of this legal summary:
Note also that the courts have proven that anti-gay laws like DOMA originated in Christian hatred of gays.....the legislative record of such laws is filled with bible-babble. That's wholly inappropriate for a secular government and these laws should have been tossed on that basis alone.
That's absolute proof of your anti-gay animus and your desire to harm gays and their families. There's no evidence whatsoever to support your claims which is why your ilk has lost overwhelmingly in court on both issues. Your hostile desire to deny gays and their families the same civil rights you enjoy comes from your mythology, not from reality. Society improves when superstition loses.
.
Yep, and it's been proven that it's due to people exactly like you.
The bible doesn't make or have any say in our secular laws, and never did! Including marriage laws or rights!
That's nice. Prove it! There are no valid studies which suggest children rtaised by gay parents fare any better or worse than those raised by hetero parents.
Kind of like heterosexual marriages, eh?
That's because gays tend to be victims of abuse, harassment, stigmatization, ect., which are factors that can lead to suicide or depression, ect..
Cite the studies
See first statement! But you are free to not marry a gay person if it violates your beliefs. You are not free to dictate those beliefs onto others or through law!
I have no respect whatsoever for your kind of Christianity. Your version has been a plague on humanity and has caused a great deal of harm to innocent people.
Every now and then I like to see if someone is paying attention.
Godwins rule refers to invoking Hitler/Nazis. Obviously I didn't do that.
Fundamentalists are bad news no matter which cult they belong to. It doesn't matter if they're the Afghan Taliban or the Christian Taliban here in the US.
I'm cherry picking nothing. Your cult has a very long history of persecuting gays and you've freely admitted that you want to deny gays the civil rights you enjoy precisely because you hold Christian extremist superstitions. You're part of the problem.
And how well your cult treats straight white cisgender Christian men has very little bearing on how poorly it's treated everyone else.
[WOOSH!}
Snort!
If you are referring to discussing Hitler's religious views that were a historical fact. I was taking an analogy to compare someone to Hitler.
Hi Shepboy...figure you can't address or refute any of the points made.
Hey Shepboy...thanks for proving my previous statement correct.
It's funny that he claims not to be a bigot but then in the next sentence admits that he wants same-sex couples to be denied the right to adopt or marry.
There's some serious cognitive dissonance or self-delusion going on.
If they're defending the religious liberty of people who don't share their beliefs, then they're definitely secularists. That's what secularism is all about, the separation of the state from religion. Secularism is the antithesis of theocracy.
My friend, it could mean any number of things, including treating others fairly in debate. Do not protest too much. It is okay to surrender to the room every now and again. . . .
I have read, read, and read some more and the protestations are stacking up to "high heaven." Where does truth fit in when all is protest?! I ask you.
Total BS and hilarious that several were ignorant enough to give it a thumbs up.
< Return to Famous Catholics
The Religious Affiliation of
Adolf Hitler
German Dictator, Nazi Leader
There is no question that Hitler was a Nazi. Nazism was clearly his most important religious affiliation, not in the positive way the word "religion" is often defined, but in the general sense that any philosophy or belief system which is most important in a person's life is that person's "religion," regardless of whether or not it is universally labelled as a "religion." Hitler was also born into a Catholic family, but he rejected Catholicism and in most ways he rejected Christianity in general. On occasion we have read people claim that "Hitler was a Catholic" or "Hitler was a Christian" in a meaningful way, implying that Christianity or Catholicism was the primary impetus for his Nazi reign. Such claims are simply vitriolic attacks occasionally voiced by ideologically-inclined anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi people. Historians agree that Hitler was pointedly anti-christian
Which are you?
It's not Christianity I object to...it's ZEALOTS of any stripe or flag.
...and that's the rub
Be careful what you ask for. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The baker said no......this holier than thou AH went beyond and so are most of you.
And this "holier than thou AH" didn't want someone, that he "believe's" would take away his right to be who/what he is, in his place of business.
The baker doesn't have the right to say no when he operates a for-profit business that is open to the public. His business license is predicated on him equally serving everyone who walks in the door, regardless of how he feels about their beliefs or actions.
We previously had this decision about businesses right to refuse to serve peop[le based on their religious views when Southern Baptists claimed that serving blacks and biracial people was a violation of their beliefs. That is why we no have the public accommodation protection in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that guarantees everyone equal service in a public business.
LGBT people don't care about the baker's religious views because those views are irrelevant in the customer business relationship. The customer isn't asking for their approval. A bakery isn't a religious business and the fact that the business is incorporated separates the baker himself from the business.
I understand that social conservatives don't like LGBT marriage, but they cannot use a business as a tool to deny service as a way to fight back against a SCOTUS ruling that goes against their religious beliefs.
Just as a baker doesn't have the right to refuse service to a person because of their sexual preference, this shop owner does not have the right to refuse service to a person because of their religious beliefs. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Two wrongs do make a Left though.
But you have to ignore the loopy aspect of it though
That's not exactly correct. While he can't deny them service solely due to which cult they belong to, he's free to deny service to proselytizers, people spreading pamphlets, or people causing a disruption in or near his store which he thinks impacts his business. It doesn't matter why the cultists are causing that disruption.
Nope. Not true.
You've obviously never been in business and you don't know the law.
I agree with you but saw no evidence of any of those things occurring in the article
The video shows that the owner found one of the anti-gay & anti-abortion pamphlets which the cultists apparently had left elsewhere in his shop. I posted links to the offensive images in another comment. I can't blame the owner at all for denying service particularly since he's gay.
It's a lot like expecting a black business owner to serve KKK members who are putting nooses around his shop.
No, in the video LMM linked in their post, at -1.48/1.47 you can clearly hear the man in the black t shirt saying it had come from outside.
This is fact.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Do you need a crayon?
Which the liberals will ignore...
As well as Republicans who think for themselves.
Whether they're leaving pamphlets inside or outside doesn't really matter. Why should this gay business owner serve anti-gay activists who are spreading hate speech against gays? Do they expect to be treated with respect after spewing hate?
Irrelevant to the point, your post stated "The video shows that the owner found one of the anti-gay & anti-abortion pamphlets which the cultists apparently had left elsewhere in his shop." This is factually wrong.
Why should this gay business owner serve anti-gay activists who are spreading hate speech against gays?
Legally is it classed as hate speech or free speech?
In Britain we lack American levels of freedom of speech, to my mind it's the one thing the colonials got right. You don't have to agree with their speech, you have the right to argue against it, but when people start classing speech they disagree with as hate speech, it's the beginning of a long slippery slope.
Do I think the shop owner acted correctly?
No, I think he acted crassly, but that's just my opinion.
He claimed to be offended, yet in the video he seemed to actively try and be offensive, so I'm sorry, but imo he lost the moral high ground at that point.
Sorry but I don't see how the owner finding a pamphlet proves anything other than he found a pamphlet. Should there be more substantial evidence that they were interfering with his business I'll happily change my opinion. Although there was no call to launch into a obscenity filled rant (imo)
There's no legal distinction in the US since we don't have hate speech laws per se, but the owner was well within his legal rights to deny those anti-gay bigots service and to boot them out. It's funny that so many people don't get that the bigots were free to distribute and spew their hate speech outside of his shop, but he was under no obligation to serve anyone as long as his reason wasn't based on a protected class. I take it your country doesn't have similar laws or they must work a bit differently?
There's no legal distinction in the US since we don't have hate speech laws per se
Isn't free speech classed as protected speech in America?
I seem to remember a civil case, here
The federal appeals court in Virginia overturned the verdict, ruling that the constitution protected protesters from liability. The supreme court upheld that ruling on Wednesday.
Chief justice John Roberts acknowledged in his ruling that the protesters caused pain but concluded the constitutional right to free speech overrode that. Judges and lawyers in lower courts had argued that there were times when free speech was not protected, such as remarks that were hateful or vulgar.
So it would be classed as free speech, not hate speech as claimed in your post.
but the owner was well within his legal rights to deny those anti-gay bigots service and to boot them out.
You seem to be getting me confused with someone else, I haven't argued it was illegal to deny service.
It's funny that so many people don't get that the bigots were free to distribute and spew their hate speech outside of his shop, but he was under no obligation to serve anyone as long as his reason wasn't based on a protected class.
Again, the same confusion as above.
I take it your country doesn't have similar laws or they must work a bit differently?
Britain has extensive hate speech legislation.
Why are you so willing to give the bigot from inside the store ( that would be the butthole owner) as pass? He was far worse than and much more disruptive than any of those that he was "offended" by.
He found an anti-gay pamphlet which they they admitted they had been distributing. Why should he serve bigots who are spreading hate speech about people like him? He has no obligation to do so whatsoever.
Yes, but it's only protected from government action, not private action.
.
That involved a tort action regarding free speech on public property. It's not relevant here.
.
Actually I was referring to public accommodation laws. In the US a business is free to discriminate except when the motive infringes a specific set of protected classes. I'm not sure if the UK even has that legal concept of a protected class. I've read about some public accommodation cases involving things like wedding cakes but I don't think the legal issues are the same. I just remember that the court ruled against the bigoted bakers.
I still don't get it, but am ok with agreeing to disagree on this one (pending further info). Have a nice day.
It's really simple. The baker should have baked the cake and the coffee shop owner should have served his customers.
You know, Ausmth, I think you're on to something there.
It's amazing how people overthink situations.
That's obviously the case for the baker but many businesses will discriminate against protesters and do so perfectly legally, like when Target booted the anti-LGBT and anti-abortion protesters out of their stores and out of their parking lots. Those noisy and bigoted nuts are free to protest on public property but there's no reason a store needs to serve them or even allow them to enter.
If they are not there to protest but buy coffee the guy has to serve them. According to the article they were not pamphleting in the shop. That makes the shop owner in violation of discrimination. The only legit beef the baker had was being forced to decorate a gay message. The government can't force a person's speech against a person's will. The cake he had to do.
Life would be so much simpler if people would just do their job. Life is too short to make an issue that takes a long time to resolve out of something that would be gone in minutes. Here we are discussing something that should have never been made into an issue. They just drink their coffee and are gone.
That's false on both points.
.
That's also completely false.
.
True on both points.
.
Why would a business owner serve a group which is spreading messages of hate about his sexual orientation, much less a group which is leaving grossly offensive pamphlets in his shop? Would you expect a black business owner to serve KKK members who were putting nooses in his shop?
He was required to not discriminate sole based on religion. He failed. He's a criminal and a bigot.
What I stated is what will be ruled on by the court. So as of now it is just your opinion that the government can force you to draw a picture you don't want to do.
"he owner did his best asshole impersonation."
I don't think it was an impersonation.
Correct. The burden will be on the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the owner denied them service because they were Christians rather than the fact that they were spreading hate literature about people like him. It's their bigoted behavior not their cult affiliation which got them booted out.
" It's their bigoted behavior not their cult affiliation which got them booted out."
Just what did they do inside the shop thst caused the bigotted shop owner to go into a hysteric rant and thru them out? And dont say they were distributing their pamphlets becase it has already been shown several time that they did no such thing.
As the article noted they were distributing those anti-gay & graphic anti-abortion pamphlets in the area. That's the mission of that hate group. Why should any ethical person - especially someone who is gay or female - serve such bigots who are spreading hate speech about gays and trying to infringe women's rights?
"As the article noted they were distributing those anti-gay & graphic anti-abortion pamphlets in the area."
So? They were within their rights to do so. Oh thats right. You are only OK with someone excercizing their rights when they agree with your bigotted opinions.
"Why should any ethical person -"
Judging by his rant the bigotted store owner was not ethical, moral, or civil.
Yes they were. Just as the owner was within his rights to expel them from his business.
"Just as the owner was within his rights to expel them from his business."
Ah thats right! A business can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Well they can if they are not part of one of the groups liberals pander to all the time. About the only people a business can discriminate against are white Christian people. So i guess you are right. That bigotted store owner was within his rights.
Sorry but I fully support their right to be dumb bigots and distribute hate speech in public areas. But you seem to think they should be free from private consequences for trying to harm gays and women.....that's not how free speech works in the US.
Oh goody, another article about butthurt conservatives.
Careful there - “butthurt” is a word that the right likes to use. If the left starts using it then it will get willy nilly banned.
Lack of exercise is a common remedy.
Or more lube I imagine.
And the "couple" in the Colorado case weren't butthurt??
I doubt it since a better and more ethical baker donated a cake.
They filed the complaint to help protect other customers, not themselves.
Don't worry John. There's a new race every day. Today, at this time, you're in 4th and 18th place. But one lucky draw with put you in 1st place.
Agreed. This is not the behavior we should want in public businesses. Unless the owner of this cafe has established his business legally as a gay-only coffee club he should be serving anyone who enters his establishment as long as they are not being disruptive (i.e. breaking the law in some way).
Although this wildman is no doubt an exception, I think this extreme example makes a good point. Businesses should have the right to determine what they offer (equally) to (all) patrons, but should not have the right to determine who they serve as long as the patrons are not breaking any laws.
Can I get a cup of hate coffee to go with my slice of hate cake?
Isn't it interesting that the only sites carrying this story are right-wing, christo-bigoted websites? Haven't seen any reputable news sources spreading this kind of shit.
Reputable like fake news CNN?
Yep
This discussion is more proof that virtually no conservative understands what public accommodations laws are or how they work, much less what a protected class is. No wonder conservatives always lose these cases.
Based on what the RWNJ websites are claiming are the images of the pamphlet it's both anti-LGBT and graphically offensive. I can't blame the owner at all for booting the dumb bigots out.
pic 1
pic 2
The HR department at my company wouldn't hire anyone they thought held anti-gay or other such bigoted views, regardless of whether they belonged to a nutty cult like this one.
So what was the graphic part again?
Looks to me like the only people who'd be offended are those who hate religion or the unborn.
Thanks for coming out as a religious extremist.
I'm not that religious and not even really that pro life on abortion. But I can understand somebody having moral qualms about it just like the ethics of drone strikes or cheap foreign labor practices.
Yeah, and you're the ruler of your own planet, too. You've already told us what you are. Why don't you own it?
The only thing I'll own is that it's possible for somebody to believe being gay is a sin and not be a bigot.
They were trying to buy a cup of coffee, not looking for a job in your anti-religious bigoted company. Even the baker didn’t throw the homosexuals out or refuse to serve them prebaked goods. This whole thing is a double standard: homosexuals want the right to do and say whatever they want while, simultaneously, denying the same right to those who oppose their views. Just one more justification for Mississippi to create an anti-discrimination law for religious people.
BS. They were trying to distribute their disgusting pamphlets and push their primitive, ugly, repugnant beliefs. I wish I'd been there to help the owner "escort" these scumbag, hypocrite POSs out if necessary.
They have the right to say what they want on public property just like homosexuals do. And I wish I had been there to stick the bastard’s head up his own ass.
BS. They were buying coffee and this bigot had a rage attack.
For the coffee shop owner perhaps.
Oh, he's a polite bigot so he should get a pass on following the law.
I'm not the target of their hate speech like that gay business owner was and we don't care what cult you belong to. But one of my partners is gay and at least 3 of our employees are as well, so why would we hire a dumb bigot who has problems with gays, blacks, women, or any other of our current staff? We want skilled people who work well with others. We definitely don't want bigots like Brendan Eich who spent $10K trying to deny his coworkers their basic civil rights via Prop h8.
So you’d be ok if businesses refuse to hire homosexuals because the employees think homosexuals are disgusting? If not, why should homosexuals be free to discriminate and other people are not?
No, just as I wouldn't favor a businesses which refused to hire blacks or Catholics because their other employees thought such people were disgusting. Plus in both cases it would violate state & federal law, and my state also prohibits employment discrimination for sexual orientation. However we will refuse to hire dumb bigots regardless of whether they're racist, anti-Catholic or homophobic.
I suspect your problem is you don't understand how these laws work and you don't know which traits are protected or what the scope of those protected traits is.
The first picture reminds me of a Cannibal Corpse cover.
I don’t think this case is similarly situated to the baker case at all. The baker didn’t refuse to serve homosexuals nor did he throw them out of his shop. He sold prebaked goods and did custom designed wedding cakes. His custom designed cakes are artistic and expensive. He told the gays that they could buy prebaked goods but that he was opposed to custom designing a cake to celebrate something that went contrary to his religious beliefs. The baker may have a point and the court will have to decide.
In this case, the religious people were passing out literature on the street not in his store. It doesn’t matter if they had the literature on them when they came into the store because the owner doesn’t have anything to do with how they exercise free speech on public space. The owner ejected the customers simply because he doesn’t like their views. This is well beyond what happened in the baker case.
In any event, if this owner can eject customers because he finds them politically offensive, then other owners should be able to refuse to serve gay customers because they find homosexuality offensive. If homosexuals are being treated as a protected class in some states, then religious people should either campaign to remove the protected status for homosexuals or, as in Mississippi, create a protected class for themselves.
I am compelled to agree with you on this occasion. Which points to the need for all sides to drop their issues and try to return to some sense of savoir faire! So many court cases based on people forgetting the art of compromise and working issues out between themselves.
A business owner has the right to expel people from his business if they are engaging in disruptive activity. I hope the rightwing hamsters aren't thinking they've got the equivalence of the bigoted cake-maker here.
Not at all. I support the right of business owners to engage in freedom of association including against Conservative Christians like myself.
the only complaints I have are for the Christians not leaving immediately and without trying to extend the conversation.
And for the owner behaving like an immature jerk instead of simply, politely, but with determination letting them know he didn't want their business and that failure to leave would result in calling the police.
I appreciate that measured and reasonable response.
These scumbag phony "christians" targeted this man's shop. Anyone believes it was just an accident that they happened to be leafleting right outside his shop and then went in to get a cup of coffee (and didn't continue to do so) are aiding and abetting a BS story. This is Westboro Baptist scum tactics.
Then they are not following the teaching of Jesus
Luke 10:8-12, 16
Jesus said: “Whatever town you go into and the people welcome you, eat the meals they give you and heal the people who are ill there. Tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is very near to you now.’ But whenever you come into a town and they will not welcome you, you must go into the streets and say, ‘We brush off even the dust of your town from our feet as a protest against you. But it is still true that the kingdom of God has arrived! I assure you that it will be better for Sodom in ‘that day’ than for that town.
Then he added to the seventy, “Whoever listens to you is listening to me, and the man who has no use for you has no use for me either. And the man who has no use for me has no use for the one who sent me!”
Westboro is not Christian. They are followers of the Laws of Moses, not Christ.
You know that and I know that but that's their claim. And we apparently live in a world in which, where Muslims are concerned, where the rightwing holds every one of them responsible for the acts of any one of them. Until that stops being the case I'll hold Christians to the same standard.
That is utter and complete BS. It is the left that lumps all Muslims into one big group. The left continually fails to recognize the radical Muslims. The right has said time and again that it opposes radical Islam. The left refuses to even acknowledge it exists.
There are distinctions.
1. Christian ministers like myself acknowledge that not everyone who claims to be part of a specific religion are actually genuine followers of that faith's teachings
2. Islam is first and foremost a political ideology. It uniquely calls for making all nations and peoples under the political authority of Islam
3. Islam also uniquely presents 3 options for non Muslims: convert, die, or pay the Jizya tax to be under the authority and "protection" of Islam
Actually Fred Phelps was ordained as a Southern Baptist minister. His cult's odious views are pretty much the same as what SBC churches preach, the only difference is that he was far more honest about his hate.
.
Thanks but I'll ask my Muslim friends about their beliefs, not a Christian pastor with an ax to grind.
Then they are not following the teaching of Jesus
Luke 10:8-12, 16
Jesus said: “Whatever town you go into and the people welcome you, eat the meals they give you and heal the people who are ill there. Tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is very near to you now.’ But whenever you come into a town and they will not welcome you, you must go into the streets and say, ‘We brush off even the dust of your town from our feet as a protest against you. But it is still true that the kingdom of God has arrived! I assure you that it will be better for Sodom in ‘that day’ than for that town.
Then he added to the seventy, “Whoever listens to you is listening to me, and the man who has no use for you has no use for me either. And the man who has no use for me has no use for the one who sent me!”
Westboro is not Christian. They are followers of the Laws of Moses, not Christ.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
I guess Christians don't need to follow such laws, like the 10 commandments, eh?
It's interesting and very revealing that the only sites reporting this are the usual rightwing sewage distribution organs for rightwing lies.
No surprise that there were a lot of Christian extremists from out of state making negative comments on the Yelp site. Yelp indicates that they'll be doing cleanup soon.
No they did not!
Like hell they didn't. These are neither naive nor innocent lambs, as their disgusting leaflets prove. They picked this well-known gay owned coffee shop with a purpose which was to manufacture some propaganda for people like you to use.
Now i am sure you can postitively prove that. Not speculation on you part actual hard evidence. You know you can't but are projecting commonly used left wing tactics on to these people.
I don't know whether they targeted his shop per se, but these anti-gay bigots were most definitely targeting people like the shop owner and anyone else who is gay.
So, the coffee shop owner wants to f**k his boyfriend in the a** in front of customers?
I'd say the health inspector would deduct a few points for that.
Gee I wonder if this was one of the folks that was so offended over the bakery refusing to make a gay wedding cake. If there is any justice in the world this guy will have to pay a fine of $130,000.00 just like the baker did.
Actually the fine against the Kleins would have been higher than $135K given the serious harm they caused, except the civil rights commission and the court were limited by the statute.
Maybe next time the dumb bigots will follow the law.
It is amazing to me how ignorant people can be about same-sex couples as parents. The experts flatly contradict their nonsense.
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006
Canadian Psychological Association, 2004 & 2006
Facts ultimately don't matter to bigots especially not to bigoted Christian extremists. They're just willfully ignorant because facts debunk their superstitions.
Really Tex?
I think the Washington State Human Rights Commissioners office is going to specifically debunk a few of your well stated views....
Those who want to take the splinter out of their brothers eye, should first take the log out of their own....
What the Seattle Coffee shop owner did was illegal, JUST as illegal as what the Tri-Cities Florist did and that is according to the same liberal government official that buried the florist trying to destroy their business.
Your facts are going to prove mighty thin my friend.....
I think we are not easily viewing comments again. . . .?
What I'm going to do is post the christian side that was heard on the radio monday here in Seattle...
then the State Human rights commissioners position which was also heard on the radio tuesday...
And then the Coffee shops position heard today on the same radio program here in Seattle.
I think it's going to surprise everyone.....
(still waiting on the interview from today being posted, then I will post all three here in the order they were done)
The Gay coffee shop owner is going to disagree with a lot of you..... GOOD FOR HIM!
I'm going to put the Seattle Coffee Shop Interviews in their own article, 820+ comments on this one is getting too difficult to view or even follow anymore.
Sorry for the inconvenience.....