Shame on the Silent Christian Leaders Who Refuse to Stand Against Government Tyranny

In this Nov. 15, 2016 file photo, attorney Kristen Waggoner, center, representing florist Barronelle Stutzman, who was fined for denying service to a gay couple in 2013, addresses a hearing before Washington's Supreme Court in Bellevue, Wash.

By Michael Brown Published on February 16, 2017

There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty today. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.

There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.

Instead, the court ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother who had employed gay workers and served gay customers for years, was required by law to participate in a gay wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs — beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Christians for the last 2,000 years.

Not only so, but the court upheld the attack on her personal assets as well — her house, her savings, her retirement funds — by requiring her “to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her,” fees which could reach as high as one million dollars.

Previously, when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, an aggressive liberal who brought the suit against Barronnelle, “announced he would accept $2,000 in penalties, $1 in fees and costs, plus an agreement not to discriminate in the future and to end further litigation,” Barronnelle rejected the proposed settlement.

She explained,

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.

I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.

Today, on my radio show, shortly after the ruling was announced, and with the full weight of the state’s ruling hanging over her head, she told me she would do the same thing again (stating that when God changes His Word, she will change her mind) — also stating without the slightest trace of bitterness that she would gladly serve Robert Ingersoll should he come into her store today.

Where are the Christians?

Friends, what we are witnessing today is a breathtaking abuse of power, an extreme overreach by the government, a shocking example of LGBT activism out of control. Yet, over the next 7 days, church services will come and go without a word being spoken, and over the next 48 hours, the Christian blogosphere will remain relatively quiet. How can this be?

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, courageous Christian leader Basilea Schlink rebuked the silence of Christians immediately after Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass (Nov. 9, 1938), when the Nazis set synagogues on fire and vandalized Jewish places of business, also killing and beating some Jewish victims as well. And while I am not comparing gay activists and their allies to Nazis, and I am not comparing the Washington court’s ruling to Kristallnacht, I am comparing the silence of Christians then and now.

Please stop and read these words carefully.

Schlink wrote,

We are personally to blame. We all have to admit that if we, the entire Christian community, had stood up as one man and if, after the burning of the synagogues, we had gone out on the streets and voiced our disapproval, rung the church bells, and somehow boycotted the actions of the S.S., the Devil’s vassals would probably not have been at such liberty to pursue their evil schemes. But we lacked the ardor of love — love that is never passive, love that cannot bear it when its fellow men are in misery, particularly when they are subjected to such appalling treatment and tortured to death. Indeed, if we had loved God, we would not have endured seeing those houses of God set ablaze; and holy, divine wrath would have filled our souls. … Oh, that we as Germans and as Christians would stand aghast and cry out ever anew, “What have we done!” At every further evidence of our guilt may we repeat the cry. (From her book Israel, My Chosen People: A German Confession Before God and the Jews.)

What adds to the tragic irony of the moment is that in recent weeks, designers have said they will no longer work with Melania Trump and stores have dropped Ivanka Trump product lines, not because of deeply held religious beliefs, which are explicitly protected by the First Amendment, but because of political differences. And these companies and individuals are being praised by liberal Americans for standing on their convictions. But when a Christian florist politely declines a gay couple’s request to design the floral arrangements for their “wedding” ceremony, she is taken to court and threatened with the loss of her business and all her personal assets.

Where is the righteous Christian indignation? And where are the bleeding-heart liberals who claim to care about the persecuted underdog? (Remember: The ACLU with its massive resources is leading the charge against Barronnelle.)

I can respect Christian leaders who try to stay out of the culture wars because they don’t want to drive their LGBT neighbors and friends away from the gospel — as long as they speak up at times like this, when our fundamental liberties are being trashed and when a gracious Christian grandmother is being savaged by the state. But should they remain silent at a time like this, the next time they raise their voices on behalf of the LGBT community (and against the conservative evangelicals they so frequently attack) they will be shouting one message to the world: “I am a hypocritical coward!”

Let me urge you, then, to do three things: 1) share this article with others to help spread the word; 2) make a statement about this gross injustice however you can (on social media; to your family; from your pulpit — I’m urging every pastor reading this column to say something to your flock the next opportunity you have); 3) go to this website to stand with Barronnelle and her team; 4) pray for God to awaken the Church of America.

Will you take a stand today?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • SinoBen

    Dr Brown, I thoroughly agree. We do need the big voice of our church leaders to speak out. As MLK Jnr calls then is still true today, the church should be the Thermostat, it should be the moral compass of society.

  • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

    Or maybe the judges understand the Constitution and law? Your advanced degree is in dead languages — stick with that.

    • yobabe

      So, a gay florist who specializes and services gay weddings/ceremonies only should be sued out of business, home, savings if he refuses to service a hetero-couples wedding? Or a photographer who specializes in taking women-only photographs can and should be sued by any man she refuses to photograph? Or a Muslim baker who refuses to make a cake for a Jewish Hanukkah celebration can and should be sued by any Jew who is told no? This should be interesting.

      • James Doyle

        No sorry you got your post wrong Muslims cannot be touched. Also Muslims would not accept any courts ruling as it would be against Sharia Law.

        • Andrew R

          “Muslims cannot be touched”
          You’re unaware Trump just tried to ban anyone from several countries from entering America because they were majority Muslim countries?

      • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

        Did you READ the 59-page court ruling unanimously decided by nine WA State Supreme Court? I would venture the answer is no.

        • yobabe

          Yes, I did…be careful what you wish for…it may come back to bite you. Whether you like it or not, freedom of conscience is a cornerstone of our Republic…she serves gays, employs gays…just excused herself from a ceremony she doesn’t want to be part of…she obviously didn’t discriminate against the people as is evidenced by her decade long business relationship with one of the plaintiffs…just the ceremony.

          • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

            You may have read the decision, but it is not reflected in your refutation of the decision and the points you’ve just written.
            I have a personal guideline of limited exchanges with hidden icons — no accountability to words. I am done responding to you.

        • Sonnys_Mom

          Did you HEAR the words of the arrogant prosecutor? Or are you simply deaf to anything but your own opinion?

          • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

            Again, did you read the decision. I have been at a conference when Atty. Waggoner presented and brought Stutzman out on stage. Rarely have I witnessed a more manipulative and myth filled account as Waggoner gave.

            She stirred up so much hate and fear that the speaker who followed her was asked by the conference stage staff to “dial it back, way back.”

            I am far from deaf and strongly encourage you to read the decision.

  • Dant e

    What powerful words by the sister, they blessed me greatly, may God bless her also greatly the same applies to you Dr. Brown. If the sister has her possessions taken from her, the church needs to come around her and help.

  • O’Pinyon

    We honor our Father when we stand up for our brothers and sisters who are shunned by an unbelieving world.

  • I’ve linked to this article, along with others, at my church small group’s website and sent an email out to everyone in our group, encouraging them to check it out. So far, 0 responses. I do wish our “leaders” would do more leading, but sad to say, a lot of people don’t want to be led anywhere. They are too comfortable just where they are.

    • gotwood4sale

      .

      The lack of response is disheartening and reveals the depth of the problem.

      All the more reason to be resolute in our beliefs.

      This is a great article and I too will be sharing it with others.

      Keep up the good work.

      .

  • O’Pinyon

    The children who silently wish they could be living with their own mother and father deserve our advocacy and courage.

  • Nelson Banuchi

    From my perspective, it is not only the silence but the lack of a holy and truthful lifestyle in the body of Christ that seems to shame us to silence. We would be more powerful speakers and effective protestors for justice if we did so in the fulness of the Spirit’s activity because we lived according to the grace given us in Christ.

    A Church walking in holiness is a better representative of justice.

  • alyse webb

    Christians need to stand firm in love. I applaud this woman. What compassion, courage and tact she has shown. In the face of losing everything, her love still shines through! I don’t hate anyone from the LGBT, in fact, I try to be especially kind to these people. But, I will not compromise my beliefs either. It’s a fine line to walk when you hate the sin but love the sinner.
    The Church needs to fight for our rights as believers while still reaching out to the lost and hurting. Dr Brown, except from you, I have heard silence or hatred from our Christian leaders. Where has doing as Christ did gone?

  • Kevin Quillen

    “I can respect Christian leaders who try to stay out of the culture wars
    because they don’t want to drive their LGBT neighbors and friends away
    from the gospel” Quote from Dr Brown.
    Could this be part of the problem? Staying out of the culture wars breeds apathy. Christian leaders should always be in the wars, pointing out sin and calling to repentance. What are Christians afraid of?

    • Rommsey

      The so called Christians you refer to are scared of man, not God.

  • motorsportsnz

    What is going on in the minds of these warped judges
    Well a simple answer is and Jesus would have said to these white washed tombs that they are vipers and snakes
    This is what is written above from Michael brown
    , plus an agreement not to discriminate in the future and to end further litigation,”
    These judges are doing just this they are discriminating against this elderly lady
    Hipocrytes snakes vipers white washed tombs
    It is written
    woe unto them who institute unjust laws

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Now you know what I have to put up with every single day by living in this state! I pray repeatedly that I don’t become like Lot where I open the door and say, “Friends…”

    If ever there was a cut & dried case of Religious Liberty this was it! By Barronnelle’s own admission she repeatedly served and employed Homosexuals so this act was a CLEAR act of Religious convictions.

  • Dave ingalls

    Excellent, Dr. Brown! Clear, comprehensive and concise message of the situation this lady faces and what we all will face if we don’t stand now.

  • Nathan Lewis

    Michael,
    I follow your thread and have spoken to you on your show, and I love your thoughtfullness – But I think you missed the mark on a large point in this statement ‘I can respect Christian leaders who try to stay out of the culture wars
    because they don’t want to drive their LGBT neighbors and friends away
    from the gospel.’ Really the issue with lack of action from Christian leaders is just that – staying out of the culture. This IS the problem. We are fearful to speak of sin for fear of offending the sinner. Where the real principle is we are told not to judge the world (object) – meaning condemnation and hate of the sinner versus a declaration of sin as sin (action). If you study this concept – and this is an important difference – we can, should and must separate the object from the action. John the baptist spoke of the sin of herod (luke 3:19). Are we better than he? Really the issue is that we have lost the discussion on the nature of man, retreated from the idea of repentance, and embraced love without the change process of surrendering.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Mr Lewis

      Are you saying that we should hate the sin and not the sinner?

  • Karen Brittin Clugstone

    AS A NATION IF WE CONTINUE TO TURN OUR BACKS ON GOD AND HIS SON JESUS CHRIST, GOD WILL NOT BLESS THIS NATION. THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE NOT TRULY CHRISTIANS THEY JUST SAY THEY ARE.. IF YOU ARE TRULY A CHRISTIAN THEN YOU STAND IN BELIEF OF GOD’S LAWS THE TEN COMMANDMENT AND HIS HOLY WORD WITHIN THE HOLY BIBLE. CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE SOLDIERS FOR GOD AND JESUS CHRIST IN THIS LAND AND ALL OVER THE WORLD FIGHTING EVIL WITH GOD’S WORDS AND PRAYERS TO OUR MOST HIGH IN HEAVEN ABOVE. TO BE A GOOD CHRISTIAN YOU TRULY STAND IN YOUR FAITH IN THE HOLY TRINITY. FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. DON’T SAY YOUR A CHRISTIAN AND NOT FOLLOW OUR HEAVENLY FATHERS LAWS… GOD IS ALL AROUND US PRAY, READ HIS WORD AND HAVE FAITH SUBMIT TO THE FATHER AND BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MANS SINS HOLD ON TO THE BELIEF THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE YOU THROUGH THIS LIFE… IN JESUS NAME I PRAY FOR ALL US SINNERS FOR NONE OF US ARE PERFECT… AMEN

    • Nathan Lewis

      Karen, Love your heart here and agree – Just an FYI – all caps indicates ‘yelling’ and ‘anger’ – you are among friends and allies – might want to edit post for meaning to be read by reader instead of being distracted by misconstruing your tone.

      • justme

        Yes hard for me to read too but some cannot see lowercase❤

      • Triple T

        Or maybe, that was her intended tone all along. I know sometimes feel like using that tone when I think about things like this.

  • Wayne Cook

    If our leaders won’t stand firm on Scripture, are they really leaders?

    • biblegaL1

      @wayne_cook:disqus Bible is clear that in the last days even pastors will compromise the word of God.

      • Wayne Cook

        Yep…I have a close friend on the Left coast who has changed churches 4 times because pastors are caving to state laws. Abortion, merging restrooms, hostile regulations for Christian businesses. Religious freedom is non existent in Washington state.

    • Charles Clark Peebles

      “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” – Matthew 23:8-10

  • Rhonda Relyea Buonanno

    I urge Christians to gather their friends and do the book study by Dr Pastor James Garlow, “Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today’s Tough Issues.” You will become equipped with the truth about every social and political issue out there; issues we Christians should be leading on.
    And pass this book along to your pastor also. It’s time to stand for God’s way in this nation!!

    • Sonnys_Mom

      Or – Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties by Trent Horn. On Google Books, too!

  • Vicky

    I believe I lost a gay friend, in part because of this issue, when he cited the actions of this woman florist as an example of Christian narrow mindedness toward the gay culture and I did not respond affirmatively. This is a colleague I respected and I had believed our friendship was above sexual identity politics. My stand for my faith was flimsy at best and I now regret not speaking more coherently and directly; I was afraid of losing his friendship and offending him. While I would not personally refuse service to a gay couple getting married, the way this woman was treated by the high court and by the plaintiff is terrible. This article drives it home.

  • C.J.

    If offending someone and losing friends is more important to you than serving God than something is wrong with you

  • funnymoney123

    If you think that Christian friends or the community will stand by you when you are attacked such as this lady you are wrong. They will hide so fast. I do wish I could of done more to help this lady but when this first happened to her is when I started sending a monthly donation to Legal Defense. They step in to help so many Christians that find themselves fighting the government. It will not be long before the churches will be taken to court for not allowing weddings. Then the Christian leaders may wish they had helped during the first legal challenges. I have heard my pastor mention from the pulpit the attacks against the baker, photographer & the florist. I guess we need the 5 alarm sound from the big leaders!!

  • C.J.

    If God offended people in the Bible than why would it be sinful or unChristian for Christians to offend people? we’re only doing what God did.

  • Mike 1231

    Genesis 3:15, God put enmity on the seed of Satan for God’s people, and His Son. Dear brothers in Christ please adjust your thinking, God makes nonbelievers hate Christian. These Washington State Judges are following their spiritual father Satan and it is their nature to lie and rage against Christ and His Church. (John 8:44) This is a spiritual battle and God’s people need to pray, more and more. Don’t beat up weaker brothers, walk in the light of The Light of the World, and those who follow Him will not walk in darkness, but have the Light of Life.

  • Momi Aldrich

    Michael Brown I respectfully submit that this just happened. How do you know Christian leaders are not responding appropriately? There hasn’t been enough time for a responce. Please , Body of Christ stop the cancer of self consuming anger. It is self destructive. And certainly doesn’t show the love of Christ. Why don’t you host a quarum and invite all the prominent christian leaders that truly believe the word?
    In relaity 90% of the Body of Christ is compose of small churches who truly do speak up. But you wont find them in the limelight. So your observation is obscured.

    • Patricia

      Really? Just exactly is the love of Christ to you? People limit it to the passages in Corinthians. It is time to start turning some tables over. Jesus did that in case you did NOT know. And it was very powerful! And He His anger was out of love for GOD. It is time to start loving and honoring GOD .

      • biblegaL1

        @Patricia: YES! It has also become very fashionable among gays who claim to be Christians to discount the Pauline writings and the OT and only focus on the “sayings of Jesus” i.e. the “red letters” (which do not actually exist only being a publisher’s idea) . The entire Bible is the Word of God and He has expressed His “opinion” of homosexuality in many places.

    • justme

      I agree we should love one another …I also believe we should be iron sharpening iron… those who are mature in Christ bear with those who are not… yes he maybe could have said it in a more palatable way, but bear with him…Holy Spirit through Paul was to the point… he was very passionate about the things of God…. this PC stuff is not of God…love and diplomacy, but not to the point truth gets lost….overlook (that’s talking to us believers) things…love covers a multitude of sins ( us again overlooking a person’s zeal). The only reason we don’t overlook is because we get offended ( sometimes stung) by truth…yea maybe it could have been said better…but bear with one another so that Jesus is glorified…. we are nothing…we are to think of others higher than ourselves. Take this message and run with it..,change the words or whatever…but run with it. If we Christians were unified in Christ there is nothing we could not do…it’s when folks get offended over minor issues that our message gets lost. I don’t think Jesus praying right before He was crucified for unity was random…He knew the danger of letting anything divide the body of Christ! Forget these quarrels…push ahead!❤

    • Sonnys_Mom

      Pay attention! This case has been going on since 2013 and it’s been well publicized during that time. Four years is plenty of time to issue a simple statement of support. (And Google is a wonderful resource for looking up dates, a skill most US high school graduates seem to lack.)

  • Pia Colada

    Im not from the US but this alarms me in a way that this is going to set precedence to the rest of the democratic world. Christians everywhere need to stand with our brethren. God bless you all.

  • Andrew R

    I thought this would be Brown finally taking a stand against Trump. But no, it’s about cakes and flowers. People barred from entering America on the basis of their religion – that you are fine with, because they’re not Christian, but THIS is what stirs your outrage.

  • Chris in NC

    If speaking the Truth drives your homosexual friends and neighbors away from the Gospel all I would say is – Bye. That’s not on you – it’s on them.

    • biblegaL1

      I’ve lost friends over this issue. I post something about homosexuality being sinful and caught Hell over it— “because friends of mine who are gay might see it and I’m trying to witness to them.” I say “what are you telling them about their lifestyle and where it will lead them?”

  • C.J.

    Being nice to homosexuals and baking them cakes and giving flowers will not bring them to Christ, it will just keep them in sin

    • Mr. M

      As my lord and savior Britney Spears would say, “living in sin is the new thing!”

    • HikerJohn316

      I believe in being nice to people and I would sell flowers or cookies to anyone. But providing flowers or a wedding cake makes you part of the ceremony. It is your approval. God bless this woman and the people helping her.

  • John Ingram

    “… I am not comparing gay activists and their allies to Nazis…” – Why not? That’s exactly what they are. And BTW, the Nazis were liberals, as the name of their party clearly indicates: National Socialist Party.

    • Sonnys_Mom

      That’s just Dr Brown. He wasn’t thinking of the rioters and thugs dressed like ISIS who ally themselves with the lgbt,etc movement, and the corrupted judges who enable them.

  • Gary

    Yes, speak out. Unfortunately, courts don’t much care what people think. It should matter that the Washington law, and the court decision it was based on, violate the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. Both of those amendments were violated by this law, and by every anti-discrimination law in existence. The Constitution allows people to choose who they associate with and who they do business with. But the courts won’t uphold the Constitution.

    • Sonnys_Mom

      The legal profession has become corrupted by the “case law method”: many legal practitioners no longer refer to the Constitution and law AS WRITTEN, but to prior court-opinions-based-on-opinions-based-on-other-opinions… and on and on, so that they completely lose any sense of what the law originally said. This is a method of slowly injecting progressive-Marxist values into American jurisprudence.

      The people sent a message about this on Nov 8th. We won in 30 out of 50 states, in 3,084 out of 3,141 US counties, and in the electoral college.

  • I agree with you on your secondary point (that Mrs. Stultzman’s religious rights have been treasonously violated), but the notion that “no one in the Christian community is talking about this” is patently false. I’ve seen at least a dozen remarks from Christian leaders on this very situation this morning alone, and was hearing about it last night.

    Not really sure what more you’re wanting here.

    • Christian leaders who already have recognized platforms on Christian news media websites is one thing.

      But I believe Dr. Brown is calling out the vast majority of local American pastors “on the carpet,” not only for this, but for their silent negligence on so many other issues coming against the Body of Christ right now. And I must say, I happen to agree with him!

      I have been inwardly struggling with this issue of negligence since June of 2015, when it became vehemently noticeable to me from my own pastors, within my own church. And yes, I have gone to them face to face with my deep concerns.

      It basically boils down to a fear of offending people in a diverse congregation, and the foolish belief that one can legitimately convert souls to Christianity without ever talking about sin.

      Oh, they’ll talk about aspects of Malachi 3 every Sunday and Wednesday without ever batting an eye; and sometimes bring it up multiple times throughout a given message. But I’ve yet to hear even one sermon centered around Malachi 2, wherein God severely rebukes the priests for their neglect in preaching the whole counsel of God’s word, to a people who are so hungry and in dire need to hear it!

      • Paul

        Dean, consider as well the root cause of fearing to offend is often bowing to money, empty pews won’t pay the church mortgage or payroll.

        • Triple T

          Anyone who wouldn’t show up in Church simply because they’re offended to hear the truth about this really doesn’t belong there anyway

          • Paul

            No argument from me on that. But when the message bearer’s income depends on those people showing up it isn’t hard to see how tempting it is to compromise the message.

          • Triple T

            I understand your point as well. It’s a fine line to walk.

          • Sonnys_Mom

            But have you noticed what’s happening lately with businesses that the left and their allies in the media try to shame and defame? Conservatives rush to do business with them, and buy their products and services! Take Chik-Fil-A and LL Bean as recent examples. And set up crowdfunding accounts to help victims of unjust lawsuits meet living expenses and court costs.

            Now if only we could get people to flock to the churches with such enthusiasm! Although I should point out, there have been many nationwide prayer campaigns started since the election, organized vis the Web.

  • missy

    Well said Michael. World culture today is influencing the church and the body/leadership of the church for the most part is not standing up to influence the culture — Christians are accepting things GOD rejects like violations of religious rights. Many Christians are failing to be the salt and light of the world. As I recently heard, fear of offending the sinner is keeping the sinners comfortable.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    I deeply respect Ms. Stutzmans convictions & she is entitled to a fair hearing by objective judges. Seems like thats not what she got. On the other hand had those convictions which affirmed her hiring of gay employees as well as providing less objectionable services to the LGBT community been extended towards her invitation to provide the floral arrangements for a gay “marriage” all this would have been avoided. the adversarial trap set for her would have been rendered harmless.I may be mistaken, but somehow it seems that her very real & admirable faith would have been better served had she just sent some of her gay employees to do the job. Jesus possibly crafted beds for customers who would use them in an unholy fashion. Ms. Stutzman sold floral arrangements to gays that may have used them to set the stage for a “romantic” evening setting for what would invariably follow. Would the Master have judged her for that..? Probably no ore than had she done teethe wedding bouquets. Hey, in spite of my idealogical alternative Ms. Stutzman has, not surprisingly gotten a bum deal from those idealogical “bums” on the bench. Again I respect her conditions – but those convictions are based upon a subjective understanding of scripture. I guess thats another reason God looks on the heart & not solely on the actions outhouse who call upon His name. I’ve little doubt that she passed His “heart test”. Though she may have missed the heart of the matter ..? This was clearly not about her being asked to deny the faith . At least not to my way of looking at it ….

    • justme

      Your way of looking at it is of course your way of looking at it….you are not a believer so you could not be expected to see a distinction. I’ll try to explain. Religious freedom should not depend on anyone’s understanding of scripture except the person’s in question ( the woman in the flower shop) I’ll have to explain the gay marriage issue for you to get a glimpse.
      God instituted marriage…His definition of marriage is: One woman and one man.

      1Corinthians 7:1-3″Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

      This is key and of the utmost importance in understanding this issue….God explains the marriage relationship…and this underscores the importance of marriage:

      Ephesians 5:21-32. 21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.

      God says marriage is supposed to be a beautiful, fantastic picture of Jesus and us..His church (His church is called the bride of Christ). A man and a woman loving each other caring so much about the other…a mutual submission. Jesus died for His church…He submitted unto DEATH …. this is the utmost one can do for another…we are in the same way to submit to Him…our actions, thoughts and ways we are to due to what we want and live for Him (I know makes little sense to those who don’t believe….. 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but for to us who are being saved it is the power of God

      There are more scriptures about marriage and it being a sanctified union between one woman and one man, and anything else is sexual immorality.
      Unmarried heterosexual couples, and homosexual couples are both sexual immorality. Anything outside of marriage..a man and a woman is sexual immorality.

      1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men……

      I will give more references …

      Galatians 1:19Now bthe works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, cdivisions, 21 envy,1 drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that dthose who do2 such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
      12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d].

      Ok with these scriptures we are to associate with believers that are following Jesus and we can associate with people outside the church (because they don’t know Jesus, and are not being disobedient when they do not follow. )

      Random people who come to buy things from vendors are fine to do business with…flowers, beds, (even if used for romance between man/man woman/woman or an unmarried man/woman..).all this is fine IF the people are not claiming to be followers of Jesus. The problem arises when anyone wants to marry…marriage is/was an God ordained, sanctified act between 1 man and 1 woman. Bring God into the equation and you have a whole other ball game as referenced above…”with these do not even eat!”

      This is clearly a very personal conviction between a person and God. If this woman was convicted …she should not have anything to do with the “marriage” between a union God has specifically (very adimately) prohibited it is certainly the woman’s perogative….

      Even if no one understands why anything is someone’s conviction (doing business with someone wearing certain clothes for instance) it is their own business, and should be respected. Ex: No shoes No shirt No service..

      My personal beliefs (and I think they are backed by scripture) are if people do not know Jesus…are not following Him… (this includes everyone…(people who practice witchcraft…sorcerers…etc there are many things that God has told folks who follow Him..have made Him LORD of their lives to both DO…love, be patient, be kind, be gentle, etc. and told them NOT DO..be greedy, swindlers, murderers, etc.) Folks who do not know Him can not get “married” (have their union represent Jesus and His church). they can have unions…however they want to do things …but since it is not God ordained/blessed it should not be called marriage….not be preformed by pastors , not have anything to do with Christian marriage…it has no place in this context.

      Explanation as to why it commands this: Believers are to be kind and live in and among other Christians and unbelievers The people who are claiming to follow Jesus but continue to live not according to His will are in a very dangerous position…this is very serious to God…He wants all believers to edify and help the body of Christ ( other believers) this” not associating” with believers who will not submit to Jesus’ Lordship or His way of doing things are in a very bad situation and this is why the command…don’t even eat with them.

      Jesus wants all men to come to Him…make Him LORD of their lives, put Him before themselves, but He will not force anyone to. We are to do the same. It is very hard to love others and see them living without Jesus but it is our love for one another that identifies our allegiance to our savior.

      Sorry for any errors…my pad and brain are not in sync today. Lol.

      What this lawsuit is doing in the big picture is taking chunks out of Christians beliefs…if you can say “you can’t say it is a sin or wrong in the eyes of God and subsequently His followers “. Others are forcing their “faith or lack of” on Christians…..are forcing their version of morality (or lack of) on Christians and the rest of the world.

    • Mike Morgan

      Thank you SO much for your well-thought and civil dissention; such has become a rarity. The issue is obviously not serving customers from the LGBT community, rather participating in the celebration of an event that her religion views as blasphemous.

      Continuing with your idea of Jesus’ everyday carpentry, Jesus associated with sinners, including pagans. Sought them out, in fact. I have little doubt He, as a carpenter, would gladly craft furniture or utensils for pagans, but He certainly would not accept a commission to build an altar to their gods.

      • Triple T

        That’s what these “equality” types just can’t or won’t get through their thick skulls. There’s a world of difference between selling a sandwich to gay man and allowing him to hold his “wedding” in your venue.

      • Sonnys_Mom

        But when you begin to notice the opposition– no matter how well thought out and civil– starts blogging rather than commenting, you’ve probably picked up a troll. “Howard Rosenbaum” is simply following Kirk and Madsen’s prescription– essentially, keep pushing “gay” in our faces and blurring the line between right and wrong until we can no longer tell the difference. The tone of his arguments bears a distinct resemblance to that of the serpent in the Garden.

        • Howard Rosenbaum

          So, i’m the opposition ? “Pushing gay” ?! Had you understood my comments you would not have arrived at your faulty conclusion. There is a huge distinction between promoting a scriptural argument against gay “marriage” (which argument I support) & promoting a conscientious objection to providing services based on ones convictions. My tone you claim reminds you of satanic deception ?! It seems you have failed to differentiate foundational biblically based reasoning from preconceived
          religious bias. I would encourage you to reevaluate your misplaced response to what i have stated. Almost 400 comments w/a clear Christian perspective & many more up votes from fellow believers has made your misjudgment of my “blogging” even more irrelevant. No hard feelings though.

    • justme

      Was my comment/reply taken down? I don’t see it..I have it saved but if it was taken down I don’t want to repost

      • Howard Rosenbaum

        Right. I have it on my Disqus e-mail notification but someone may have protested your opening statement in which you state ; “you must not be a believer’. I have no issue w/the scriptures you quoted or the effort you put forth to clarify your position on the biblical precedent for the institution of marriage. The tone of your reply does not seem to be odious so I will respect your intentions . However how you can conclude that my sentiment implies that of one who has not come to faith in Christ is just a bit incredulous.
        A big bit. Please familiarize yourself w/my over 300 verifiably “Christian ” perspectives & their up votes by fellow believers as verified on Disqus. Thanks for your consideration, though …

        • Cpq

          I understand what you’re saying. However, think about this as well. If we knowingly participate in a sinful act (gay wedding, drive someone to an abortion) we are complicit in that sin. We must not participate so we are not judged unworthy for it. That’s why, I believe, one should not be forced to participate. She is willing to hire and serve them on other occasions. If she sells flowers and they are used for a romantic evening – she won’t know that.

          • Howard Rosenbaum

            Agreed. She should not be forced legally or any other way to violate her conscience in this matter. Were she a taxi driver picking up a fare
            would she have to refuse because it was to a Planed Parenthood center & the rider was pregnant ? Were she a neighbor or a friend with a conscientious objection, then no she should not provide the ride. As a taxi drive she would not be complicit in the taking of a life were she to provide her services. No more than the warden who executes a death sentence would be complicit in a murder. The condemned man was not murdered. He was executed. Thats not semantics. Thats his job.. Again the distinction is made between providing a service & supporting a scriptural contradiction where this conscientious florist is concerned. Btw, should this case get to the supreme court, my opinion is that her decision regarding her conscience should be upheld. That would be religious liberty & needs to be recognized as such.

        • justme

          Sorry… after rereading my post I was glad they took it down…I was fighting my ipad and didn’t realize that got in the final draft..I beg your forgiveness… do they have delete buttons?

    • Star Mann

      The moment that you are asked to put your consenting stamp of approval upon something that you/your God find repugnant by using your artistic expression, both your freedom of speech & religion have been violated.

      • Howard Rosenbaum

        As noted I respect her convictions. The provision of flower arrangements for a ceremony not appreciated by either the florist or God is not an unmitigated demonstration of support. I affirm that Ms. Stutzman should not be forced by legal pressure to violate her conscience in the matter. It is her conscience & thats not an absolute proof for a biblical mandate that all people of faith must & will agree upon. It’s w/in the realm of possibility that were Jesus a first century florist He may have drawn a different conclusion than would Ms. Stutzman in a similar situation …

        • ChaucerChronicle

          And presumably also St Paul?

        • ChaucerChronicle

          ‘It’s w/in the realm of possibility that were Jesus a first century florist He may have drawn a different conclusion than would Ms. Stutzman in a similar situation …’.

          Would it be within the range of decisions compatible with His teachings?

          Setting aside what St Paul said; did He discuss homosexuality?

          • Howard Rosenbaum

            Jesus spoke about a lot of things directly & in parables. His lack of a direct address on the subject has fueled speculation that He was at the very least neutral on the subject. That of course is simply a grasping of straws by those unable to come to terms w/the scriptural mandate regarding marriage. You know – that a man shall leave his father & mother & be joined to his wife thing. I’m sure His audience of first century Jews felt no need for this teacher & popular public figure to elaborate upon the subject. No self respecting Jew of the day would have condoned a sexual phenomena openly embraced by the Roman culture. A culture which was correctly viewed as antagonistic toward this monotheistic tribe of singularly devoted theists. So, does this have anything to do w/the concept of “participation” in a biblically prohibited practice ( homosexual marriage ) conferring approval upon the same? Well, the jews were a people of the book. That book had almost as many laws designed to regulate behavior & appropriately provide a conduit to their sometimes distant & fractured report w/this holy God as Rome had male prostitutes. What that book didn’t have was the full revelation of a grace as provided by the redemptive work of an incarnate God. A God whose blood spoke of better things than the grace previously only available to the participants of that first covenant. Now it has been said that some see grace as a license to sin. Paul commented on this thought. He also reproved those who sought the approval of men rather than the approval of God. What I’m saying is the New Testament scripture is a revelation of Gods love personified by the Master . The epistles are practical applications of that love as received by inspired writers from the HS sent directly by the Master Himself. Consequently these epistles proclaim both the ethics & moral standard of our Savior. Now, for the troubling part to those who somehow fail to distinguish conscience ruled by law from conscience ruled by faith in Gods “new & better ” law. The law of Moses was unyielding. Harsh consequences were dished out to any who veered even a mites worth away from it. Hence the grace of the God of the blood of bulls & goats offered for the sins of the people. Were I under that covenant , I wouldn’t even approach the unclean thing. Homosexual or otherwise, for fear of retribution from a God who may decide that day to make me an example of His judgement against sin ..!
            Yes, God still has a nasty view of sin. He has an even nastier view of those who turn His grace into a license to sin. ( Not that a license is required ) Bottom line. I am responsible before God for what my conscience mandates before Him as acceptable or not acceptable behavior. My conscience is that which this redeemed fellow relies upon in my affirmation of what I understand to be His will for me in the matter of biblical discernment. A conscience can be a safe guide or it can be seared & rendered useless where matters of morality & ethics are concerned. It follows that this conscience must not replace the authority of scripture. It Is only as viable as it is found faithful to the scriptue & witnessed by the HS to that deepest part of us. Our spirit which is , I believe the voice, if you will of that recreated spirit. Unbelievers have a remnant of this God conscience to the extent they’ve been influenced by our Judeo-Christian culture. Yet they are hard pressed to satisfy that conscience when it comes at huge personal cost. Hence , the admirable example of our dear Florist. Yet as noble a take on self sacrifice & commitment that this purveyor of floral fantasy provides the 21st century American believer, it is still not sufficient to be held up as the last word on this or any other biblically based theme. So yes, Jesus’ exemplary example of how not to tick off a God who meted out very real penalties to those removed from His favor in the midst of a ” bad hair day” so to speak & the NT revelation of this redeemer of all our “bad hair days” is the only criteria we should have to go on regarding a conscientious choice. That criteria?
            Let not your good be spoken of as evil – when to the pure all things are pure ( in context w/the text ) & to him whose heart does not condemn him then this one has confidence before God. There are other relative references a well. Jesus did a lot of things that were misunderstood by the religious folk of His day. Thus my hypothesis stands. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this superlative lover of humanity would have been capable of of providing the banquet table for such a feast w/out any implication ( except for some of the ore religious folk like certain pharisees & perhaps a few sadducees ) of condoning the event. May have even been a positive witness leading to future discussions w/the future Savior of the world were he to have stuck around longer enough …

          • ChaucerChronicle

            ‘Jesus spoke about a lot of things directly & in parables. His lack of a direct address on the subject has fueled speculation that He was at the very least neutral on the subject. That of course is simply a grasping of straws by those unable to come to terms w/the scriptural mandate regarding marriage.’

            1. Jesus blocked queer ‘marriage’ by confirming it’s between one man and one woman.

            2. There was no need for him to discuss the queer, as there was an iron cast consensus that homosexuality breached the law.

            When we take our children into a restaurant there is a notice which states: ‘CHILDREN. NO DRINKING.’

            No one thinks that children will be denied water – it’s assumed that they will be denied alcohol. So the denial of alcohol to children is not discussed.

            In parallel: Jesus never discussed homosexuality, because everyone knew that it was an abomination.

    • Star Mann

      The wedding is considered a permanent covenant between 2 people (for now) taking a vow to remain in sin until their death in this situation. By Christian standards all that is left to follow that in the afterlife is judgement & separation from God without repentance.

      • Diane

        God designed marriage, what homosexuals have with each other is the lust of the flesh. That’s it. God won’t bless a union like this because it goes against what He has written. Romans 1:26

    • mark

      I understand and agree with her decision, because she would be contributing to a ceremony that is not only an affront to the One and True Holy God, that she loves and serves, but also to a terrible choice the couple would be making that they, most definitely, will regret some day. She made a very tough and very right decision that pleased her Lord, and He will honor her for it. I hope that I would have that faith and devotion in a similar situation!

    • Lela

      Point well made but for one fact: as followers of Christ we are in different places when it comes to “matters of conscience” … but the Bible AND our founding documents speak quite extensively that “individual” conscience must not be violated (for how can one freely worship God with ‘guilt’ in their hearts?). If you had deeply held Christian beliefs you very well would have chosen exactly what you proposed here (your conscience would be okay with it if you were not “personally” involved…I am sure other christians would think the same and that is their conscience/right) … but most of us (me included) would draw the line at “actively participating in the actual ceremony” (we are called to “honor God” with our businesses) … while at the same time “serving” our products to everybody who walks thru our business doors is not a problem … the other thing to make note of here: as far as I know there is not ONE SINGLE CASE of a Muslim business who refused the same thing being brought up on charges … I find that quite alarming, hypocritical and unjust (not by the LGBT as I have heard they have submitted complaints … but by our government who here too is picking winners and losers … and they have steered clear of Muslim businesses in these same matters) … hmmm

      • Ivan Marecic

        Do you have info on how many Mislim cases were accused?

        • Lela

          If you google “muslim businesses and same sex weddings” you will find NOTHING. If you google “christian businesses and same sex weddings” you will find ALOT! I know only because in Colorado, our very own “advisory board” has (in fact) dismissed complaints made about Muslim businesses for the same reason (stating they find “no cause”), but we have an ongoing high profile case of “Jack Phillips, “Masterpiece Cakeshop” owner. This is really hypocritical and can only be described as “christian persecution”!

          • Ivan Marecic

            Then maybe legal precedent could be used…

          • Lela

            Colorado is NOT conservative anymore … somewhere down the line whiie we were “living our responsible lives” the progressives started “organizing” and have made great strides … we can no longer afford NOT to get involved with our civic responsibilities.

          • Diane

            Amen Lela. I’ve talked with Jack many times…..we Christians are being fed to the lions because our courts have kicked God out. You kick God out….guess who comes in?

        • Jackie

          Google louder with crowder and gay wedding cake, he released a video released April 2, 2015. Dearborn Michigan Muslims sent him from place to place, no Muslim would do a gay wedding cake.

          If you do what Lela suggested, you find that and Washington times article on Muslims refusing to make gay wedding cake.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Mr Rosenbaum

      At my first reading of your post my reaction was simply to exercise a degree of censoriousness which would have been unjustifiable.

      It can be argued that employing homosexuals has no bearing, correctly, as to whom a business will contract with. Merely because one employs homosexuals does not mean that her objection to providing goods for a homosexual ‘wedding’ cures the moral farce of such a ‘wedding’. Homosexual ‘weddings’ may be legal but, I am sure you will agree, they are a legal fiction. By refusing to complete a contract and thereby disconfirming the fiction (legal) she confirmed truth. Is that not so?

      Let me now return to my opening remarks. We Judeao-Christians are wrong, and your mild rebuke is correct, we should not be associating (at least under formal agreements: employment contracts, for example) with practising homosexuals.

      Like unrepentant perjurers, theives, swindlers, drunkards, fornicators, homosexuals, liars – we should be disassociating ourselves from. That certainly was the view of our forefathers who did in fact implement that policy (on both sides of the Atlantic during the 17th and 18th centuries).

      You may or may not believe (much less think) that you are being ‘morally clever’ by projecting your ‘morally consistent’ rebukes and thereby, prehaps, believe that you’ll escape censure from the goyim.

      Let me remind you my friend; in pre-war Germany the rise of Nazism required the ‘Death of God’ (Nietzsche); rampant, unrestrained, homosexuality in the SA and SS’s leaders. Bullets in the back of skulls of Jews were deposited for:

      1. To compensate for the excessive effeminateness of the homosexual; and,
      2. To destroy the Jewish people, their Word and our God as the source of opposition.

      The fate of the Christian, and the Jew in the US is combined.

    • Sonnys_Mom

      In other words, you think that Baronelle should simple cooperate, and make Jesus a tool of the cultural Marxist and the lgbt movements. The old moral equivalency argument– a familiar tactic.
      Barronelle has been used as a scapegoate and made an example of, to frighten and intimidate the rest of us. But I guesd that really doesn’t bother you.

  • Rommsey

    It is a shame, after-all they enjoy their Government handouts, tax-free statuses etc. The Sadducees were destroyed for their unbelief and they long sought to collaborate with the elite.

  • Froderic Frankenstein

    I whole-heartedly disagree. Jesus said in Matt 5:39 “Do no tresist the evil-doer…If anyone COMPEL you to walk a mile, with him, wlak with him two….” If you take Jesus seriously in this context, then you bake the cake and mak the floral arrangements. Dr. Brown feels that he can shame people into his position, but it is not biblical.

    • Joseph

      Jesus himself would not give flowers or bake a cake for practicing homosexuals with a pro homo message on top remember he said go and sin no more

      • Froderic Frankenstein

        If somebody comes into your shop looking for trouble and you simply do what he said, they will likely go away. If they are just looking to set Christians up, they will have no reason to stay. He said it for a reason.

    • Joseph

      The Bible also says have nothing to do with unfruitful of darkness but rather reprove them. if we don’t bake a care for adulterers or drunkards why would we do it for practicing homosexuals? why should they get a pass that everyone else doesn’t?

  • someonesgrandma

    I disagree 100% with the writer of this “blog”/”column”/”article”. I believe Christians and Christian leaders alike HAVE SPOKEN clearly regarding this situation. On November 8th, Christians went to the polls and voted for a CHANGE from this ridiculous system that has put our “checks and balances” out of whack as intended by our forefathers. We can disagree and speak out all we want against the obvious bias of these judges in favor of depraved behavior over Christian faith. We can protest…we can yell…we can write letters. We can do all the things current protesters are doing that are unhappy with the results of November’s election. But guess what??? None of their actions have changed the results of said election.

    However…because Christians spoke in the strongest way possible…voting for a return to leadership that could be influenced by God and His Word instead of popularity and lack of morals and values, there’s a good possibility that by the time this court decision goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, an appointment will have been made that will insure this decision is overturned. The ONLY WAY (other than prayer, of course) that Christians can actively influence any court decision is to put people in office who will appoint RIGHTEOUS judges instead of self-righteous judges. Everyone of those judges that sit on Washington’s Supreme Court will one day stand before the TRUE SUPREME COURT of God and be held accountable for the decision they made here. This case is most certainly not decided yet by the ultimate Judge. And we may not ever see His righteous judgment here on earth because earth has become a sinful, broken mess. So stop lecturing us for something we’ve done that you’ve chosen not to see. As Christians, we’re supposed to be about the business of lifting each other up and encouraging each other to good works. GOD IS NOT FINISHED YET. You spoke too soon!

    • Lela

      Very well said … and yes … the Christians coming out to vote for someone sympathetic to Christian values was/is the beginning of turning this persecution around … however I also would like to point out: politics ALWAYS follows the culture … SO we can elect as many Christians as possible … but I believe the REAL SOLUTION lies in shifting the culture thru the PULPITS of this nation instructing their congregations about a biblical worldview … they have stayed away from the “teaching them to observe ALL things” that Christ commanded us in the Great Commission. Excited to see what the next 4-8 years brings as the Church continues to stand up for the cause of Christ now that the adversary to our values is gone …

      • ChaucerChronicle

        ‘the REAL SOLUTION lies in shifting the culture thru the PULPITS of this nation instructing their congregations about a biblical worldview … ‘

        Outstanding.

        • Diane

          But they don’t want to offend anyone, that’s the problem. They don’t want to lose their congregation because it will hit them in the pocketbook.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Then they they may lose their soul.

          • Kevin Quillen

            or lose the tax exemption

    • Scott

      We have another tool called Jury Nullification. But we must go to trial on a not guilty plea for us to even nullify someone being charged for discrimination.

      • Kevin Quillen

        thank you. I post about jury nullification often. It can save us from tyranny but too few know about it and judges will not let you talk about it in court.

    • poquito

      One more Christian putting their trust in something other than God. We have recently seen a Supreme Court Justice vote in opposition to their political bias. Can that happen again? As for me and my house we will put our trust in God and God alone. Prayer is the mightiest force on earth. And I am going to lean on the decaying staff of politics and Supreme Court decisions?

      • biblegaL1

        @poquito: As citizens of the US we have a duty to vote for righteous laws/government to the extent that we can. It would be irresponsible to cast that off even though we KNOW that truly perfect government will not come until Jesus reigns– but until He does we do the best we can and trust God to do His part in all this. As the song goes during WW2 after the attack on Pearl harbor “Praise the Lord, AND pass the ammunition!”

        • poquito

          As a citizen of the United States I have a right to vote or not vote. The Bible does not say I must vote for righteous laws/government and to be quite frank that is impossible. As a Christian I have a perfect government, God Himself. To Him I owe my primary allegiance. He then controls those who are elected. (Prov 21:1)
          Praise the Lord and get out of politics. God is in charge.

  • richleng

    If your religion requires you to discriminate against a legally protected group, don’t operate a business open to the public in states with anti-discrimination laws.The State of Washington prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In the florist case the Washington Supreme Court unanimously held that while everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, when you operate a business open to the public, those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate. If a business owner were exempt from non-discrimination law, discrimination against any group would be permissible on the basis of religious conviction. For example, a white restaurant owner could refuse to serve blacks on the basis of their belief that God wanted the races to be separated. Oh, wait that has actually happened!.

  • Anon

    OH yes Trump, what a GODLY man!!! You people are hilarious. You treat
    separation of church and state like something you can twist as you
    please, just like the Bible. When the state wants you not discriminate
    against someone because of who they are, you cry foul because it’s
    against your beliefs. Yet at the same time, you want the state to have
    laws that take away someone’s right to choose what to do with their body
    because that’s what you believe. Don’t you see the hypocrisy? There are
    countless other similar scenarios that show how completely messed up
    this thought process is.

    Oh and I can quote Bible verses too. The
    bible might say that marriage is between a man an a woman. You know
    what it also says? It says that complete heathen nations should be
    destroyed and peoples completely wiped out or enslaved! But you don’t
    care about that, because it doesn’t fit your agenda. Doesn’t that sound a
    lot like the worries you people have with Muslims, that you learned
    from simply reading the Q’uran?

    Deuteronomy 20:10-17

    10
    When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
    11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be
    subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to
    make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13
    When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all
    the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and
    everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for
    yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from
    your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are
    at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

    16
    However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you
    as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17
    Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
    Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded
    you.

  • Star Mann

    How could ANY Christian, in good conscience, be a consenting witness before God and men to two people making a solemn oath to remain in sin until they die?

    • Sonnys_Mom

      And that’s exactly what it is– an oath to live according to a particular set of desires. “And anyone who openly disagrees had better look out, because we’re coming for you next!” That’s really what all the recent rioting has been about.

  • HikerJohn316

    I believe in being nice to people and I would sell flowers or cookies to anyone. But providing flowers or a wedding cake makes you part of the ceremony. It is your approval. God bless this woman and the people helping her. I went to jail for 6 days for sitting in front of an abortion clinic. This woman is looking at all of the evil the left can spew at her.

  • Monanny

    In answer to “Where are the Christians?”, from what I’ve seen on Facebook they are preoccupied with justifying their reasons for voting for Trump. They are constantly posting about the superficial things he is accomplishing and ignoring the moral decline of America that got us to the point of a Clinton/Trump runoff. They think they made a change to turn America great but they voted in another 4 years of Obama’s moral destruction. Christians need to decide if they are Christians or Republicans first. If they make the right choice, they will no longer be a party to the 2-party system.

    • FO

      Really? And where do you stand to be exact? Are you the holy one? You are the kind that is so easy to denigrade other Christians without having self refections.

      Dr. Brown meant for good, on the other hand, I see that your only purpose of posting is to bash other Christians.

      • poquito

        And I see that your only purpose of posting is to bash another Christian.

      • Monanny

        Oh dear. I forget that liberal tolerance spread to Republicans when they elected one. And what Christians did I “bash”?

        • FO

          Those that you think voted for one party and you said “ignoring the moral decline of America that got us to the point of a Clinton/Trump runoff”. No people do not ignore. But you seems to indicate that. If you think that 2 party system does not work, take a lead, instead of criticizing, just like I said. But no, that is not what you do and you chose to just bash the system and/or christians, cause as I found out, many are like that. So many are so good at that, yet denying the fact that you just did that.

  • Paul Burgett

    Shared! With 40 pastors and my social network. Tomorrow, Lord willing and the creek don’t rise, I will be out at the abortuary at 7am. Then I will worship in my church. Later in the week I will preach. By God’s grace I will be diligent. I will be consistent. I will follow Jesus!

    • ChaucerChronicle

      May God bless your courage.

    • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

      Make sure you do your due diligence by reading the decision unanimously arrived at by nine justices.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Have you? As Mr Russ Neal points out above:

        ‘You make a distinction between a business and the person who owns and runs the business. But the court did not. It violated all legal precedent and pierced the corporate veil, making all of her personal assets reachable by the lawsuit, putting her very means of sustaining her life at risk. This lawsuit and this court ruling are clearly designed to force an individual Christian to publicly repudiate the words of Christ concerning marriage as a condition of participating in the economic life of the community. Like you, the court wants to see this woman starve to death as an example to all other Christians to abandon their faith.’

        • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

          Of course I read it.

      • Paul Burgett

        Done

  • Putter44

    As a huge proponent of the separation of church and state and a big supporter of gay rights, including same sex marriage, even I can acknowledge that this is a relatively tough issue to confront. On the one hand, the government cannot compel your “speech,” an important constitutional principle. On the other hand, the government cannot allow discrimination in public accommodations. I’m curious to seek out the opinion and digest it. From what I gather looking at another article on the ruling, it held that creating a flower arrangement isn’t “speech.” That seems like a defensible position, though a difficult one. If that is the ruling, then it presumably leaves us with the issue of discrimination in public accommodations based on religious beliefs, ie, the tension between the florists expression of religious freedom against the public’s right not to be discriminated against unfairly. Here, you look to the state or federal laws/constitutions to determine what classes of people are protected from discrimination. Typically, most states protect against discrimination based on race, religion, creed, and sex. Only some states protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and I presume Washington is one of those states. I suppose you can choose to disagree whether a state or the federal government should protect against such discrimination. I agree with such protections, obviously. I challenge you to think about this issue from the standpoint of what you may perhaps see as a more obvious, “universally accepted” (I live in Alabama, hence the quotes) belief about discrimination laws. I assume (and certainly hope) that most people on this board would agree that anti-miscegenation beliefs are morally repugnant and have no place in 2017 America. What if a florist decided she could not provide flowers for a wedding between a mixed race, heterosexual couple? Would you disagree with the court ruling then? I certainly hope not. And please don’t say that sexual orientation is a choice and race is not a choice. I strongly disagree, and neither of us can prove the issue either way. The point is that the discrimination in both instances arises from someone’s inerrant belief that their interpretation of the Bible is correct. Slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-miscegenation laws are all forms of discrimination endorsed by large swaths of Christians in this country based on their beliefs (however wrong) about the Bible. Their beliefs gave way to history and are now adjudged to be evil. Millions of Christians in this country and around the world disagree with the interpretation of the Bible as being anti-homosexual. How about we leave our religion out of public accommodations altogether. Otherwise, you must be prepared to endorse that florist’s right to deny service to a black person, a Muslim, an atheist, a Democrat, a Republican, etc. It is a slippery slope, which makes it a difficult issue. Maybe my rambling exposes you to a different perspective and suggests that the issue isn’t as black and white as some here would see it?

  • violetteal

    This is going to get worse people.

  • Diane

    I talked to this woman on the phone soon after it happened and she actually answered the phone. She was so kind and said she still had a lot of support from the community. We Christians DO need to fight! Put on your Armor of God and get to work. We need to go to our own “War Room,” and fight the battles because we know the enemy is behind this. It could be one of us tomorrow so we need to stand strong and fight our battles on our knees. God bless all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Good show! Diane.

      I’m British, posting from the other side of the Atlantic.

      I hope our chaps and yours can get our act together.

      • Diane

        Amen Chaucer, I sure hope so! Thanks for your support on the other side of the world. God always wins.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Yes. He does.

          During the English Civil War we fought against the tyranny of King Charles I.

          A generation later the British colonists fought against the tyranny of King George III.

          The time is fast approaching when this generation, on both sides of the Atlantic, will be invited to make their last stand.

          I wonder upon His return if He will find faith?

          He may just find Diane – still standing.

          God bless.

    • Knowledge Transfer

      Stutzman made a huge error in playing nice with evil. You can’t treat evil with dignity. She should have never tolerated the intolerable in the first place unless and until the insolent and impenitent homosexuals [Inverted and perverted anti-sexual degenerates] changed their behaviors [there are many former homosexuals]. Gushing over how many homosexuals she has hired and or befriended made it easy to claim and prove “discrimination”. When indignity is treated the same as and equal to dignity, why ever be dignified? When evil is treated the same as and equal to good, why ever be good? When the insolent and the impenitent are treated the same as and equal to the humble and the contrite, why ever be humble and contrite? Like Psalm 97:10 states: “The Lord loves those who hate evil”. Sodomy and those who salute it are evil. We must stop playing nice with evil because God is all good and deserving of all of our love. Pampering perversion even in the slightest isn’t love. Pacifying the perverted even in the slightest isn’t love. LOVE means leading or driving the “loved one” out of and away from perversion not making them easy and comfortable in their perversion. Stutzman froliced around the campfire with grave publicly celebrated perversion [instead of avoiding their near occasion of grave sin] brags about her campfire sessions and then is surprised she got burnt.

      • biblegaL1

        @Knowledge Transfer: With your reasoning then she would have to interview ALL her customers as to their moral standing before God. Rom 1:28-32
        28 “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them”. NKJV
        Don’t get me wrong– I totally agree with you on the immorality of homosexuality, but there are a few other things on the “list” above. So your suggestion that she should not have made ANY floral arrangements for the gay customer in the first place is without merit.

        • Knowledge Transfer

          Only the homosexuals prance and promenade their filth in public. I never heard of “unrighteous pride parades” or “sexual immorality pride parades” or “wickedness pride parades” etc. When is the last time someone came up to you and said: “Hi! I’m a proud practicing unrighteous person” etc.
          You miss a major point only homo’s are allowed to boast about their perversion. Stutzman didn’t have to interview these worms to know they were homo’s. Nevertheless, she made a grave error in judgement because her kindness was used against her. Remember Psalm 97:10 stated: “The Lord loves those who hate evil.” She acted as if she loved evil.

    • Elizabeth

      Where’s her go fund me?

    • Seektruth

      Agree and recall what Pastor Martin Niemöller said;

      “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

  • TheBelltower

    Well that’s one way to look at it. But hyperbole such as “a gracious Christian grandmother is being savaged by the state” or “until God says” loudly calls-out that this is not a well-reasoned opinion piece. The reality is, when you run a business, it is commerce. Not a religious sanctuary. Commerce is a tightly-knit entity within a social infrastructure that is funded, permitted, regulated, made assessable, and often subsidized by local and federal governments. All of this established infrastructure is tax funded, with taxes paid for by the citizens. We may not embrace or approve of everything about all of those citizens, but they contribute nonetheless. When you run a business, you run the risk of being exposed to people you don’t like. I don’t know the details of the unanimous ruling by the courts. But, from my perspective, as long as a business exists as a non-religious entity, they cannot cherry pick their customers. This florist may personally choose to step aside because of religious beliefs, but her business had better have someone available to accommodate people of all kinds. If this woman cannot accept that, then she has chosen the wrong profession.

    • Annie

      When you run a business, you have the right to run it as you see fit. The government does not have the right to run your business as it sees fit. That is fascism. In our country, one has the right to live their lives according to their religious beliefs in every aspect of their public/private lives. If you don’t like that, noone is forcing you to give them your business.

      • TheBelltower

        So when a Muslim wants to deny you service because you are a Christian, you won’t take issue with that? Or a Lesbian wants to deny you service because you’re wearing a Star of David or a cross, you’ll smile and be on your way? Religion needs to stay out of anything that is government sanctioned or supported. You have the right to believe what you want personally, but then step aside and be prepared to allow others to do the job for you.

        • Chris Morris

          So when I want to have one of my hogs slaughtered and processed by a Muslim butcher and he refuses? Why would anyone want to use the power of the state to force someone to do something that can be found elsewhere? Would anybody reasonably expect that the product or service from such a use of force would be the best available?

          • TheBelltower

            If he’s a butcher, he’ll have someone available to do what butchers do. Otherwise he won’t be in business for long. And if you are in the back of a cab, a Muslim won’t be able to drop you off in the middle of nowhere because he doesn’t approve. A jewish owned McDonalds won’t be able to kick you out if you insist on combining cheese and beef. All absurd things that shouldn’t and wouldn’t happen because religion should not be combined with commerce. But for some reason, Christians (including my family) feel that religious beliefs somehow can be used to endorse obnoxious and antisocial behavior at work. If one of my employees pulled this type of thing on a customer, they wouldn’t have their job for long.

          • Kevin Quillen

            Christians simply want to do as the constitution spells out as our right. Exercise our religion freely as our conscience dictates.

        • biblegaL1

          I will take my business elsewhere. Muslims are given a pass all the time for their religious observances: They don’t have to deal with alcohol even when their job calls for it. ( and I don’t drink either) And they are demanding prayer rooms AND time off at public universities and other places for their 5X/day prayer times! Where’s the ACLU objecting to this? ANSWER: they’re NOT!

          • TheBelltower

            Okay then. I haven’t personally experienced what you’ve illustrated. But seeing as you have, you have articulated the problem precisely.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Christian ethics are not ‘arbitrarily’ imposed into commerce.

            For example, we are instructed to have fair and consistent weights and measures so that those with whom we complete contracts are not cheated.

        • Sonnys_Mom

          The have, and the complaints against them dismissed.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          There is no moral equivalence between faith and repetitive rear entry.

          If a lesbian refuses to provide a service then she is responsible for the annual result on her profit and loss account.

          Moreover, it is unclear why a lesbian would want to deny goods and services to the religious. It is clear why the religious would not want to provide goods and services to the homosexual: to suppress the risk of children being exposed to ‘gender’ confusion and thereby promote communal well-being.

          • TheBelltower

            So you’ve given a lot of thought to what people do in the bedroom? Of course you do realize that there is an entire multi-billion dollar industry geared toward heterosexual “repetitive rear entry.” Are you as vocal toward everyone? Or are you only thinking about what two men do?

            Regardless, what does any of this have to do with operating a flower shop?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Your error is to equate homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.

            The first step is to drive homosexuality back into the bedroom to suppress the risk of ‘gender’ confusion being sown in the minds of the impressionable young; for example, by refusing to give permission for homosexual pride parades.

          • TheBelltower

            I have made no morality judgements regarding sexuality. You were talking about specific sexual activities, which I addressed.

            Everything else you’ve said is equally as absurd, but not on-topic. So I won’t address.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            That’s a great pity as I was really enjoying our discourse.

            Do come back with any further queries.

        • Elizabeth

          Operative word being government sanctioned or supported…..a private business in neither

    • biblegaL1

      @TheBelltower Re-read the article: Baronelle had SEVERAL other florists willing to do the work : “despite the fact that she had served him for [10] years and despite her recommending THREE other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding”. AND it’s a FLORIST for Pete’s sake! She is not in any way “subsidized” by the government. She pays all her taxes on her business for government services just like anyone else.

      • TheBelltower

        I read the article. That other florists are willing to do it is not the point. As I’ve attempted to explain.

    • Russ Neal

      You make a distinction between a business and the person who owns and runs the business. But the court did not. It violated all legal precedent and pierced the corporate veil, making all of her personal assets reachable by the lawsuit, putting her very means of sustaining her life at risk. This lawsuit and this court ruling are clearly designed to force an individual Christian to publicly repudiate the words of Christ concerning marriage as a condition of participating in the economic life of the community. Like you, the court wants to see this woman starve to death as an example to all other Christians to abandon their faith. Like ISIS, you and the court demand your Christian neighbors and family members convert or die.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        ‘This lawsuit and this court ruling are clearly designed to force an individual Christian to publicly repudiate the words of Christ concerning marriage as a condition of participating in the economic life of the community.’

        Outstanding!

      • IKD38

        Hillary just as much said so, that we Christians have to change our way of thinking! about our faith!

      • Seektruth

        Wow! Well said!!

    • ChaucerChronicle

      ‘The reality is, when you run a business, it is commerce.’

      Then you should support the florist as each decision materialises on her business’s profit and loss account.

      There is a good case for not providing goods and services that contribute to the promotion of homosexuality: all children need to have the risk of ‘gender’ confusion being sown in them suppressed.

      • TheBelltower

        If someone goes to rent a car at an airport, or book a flight, or purchase insurance, or buy a refrigerator, customers need to know that the person behind the counter is going to do their job and not take it upon themselves to leave them hanging by arbitrarily deciding that they are going to hide behind a religious book and not serve someone. If I employ someone to do their job, they had better put their opinions aside and do it. I am not going to get into a nuanced debate about the old testament, because it doesn’t matter. Just do your job or go find another one. I don’t need to be involved in a lawsuit, lose my lease, lose my license or deal with an angry customer that’s experienced the opinionated attitude of an employee who has arbitrarily decided which skimmed sections of a book they want to take literally. It’s bad for business, bad for religion and a bad precedent to set for our community. And frankly, when people see this behavior, it doesn’t make Christians look very Christian.

        I’m not even going to address your last point.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          You state: ‘It’s bad for business’.

          That decision is for the owner of the business – not for you.

          That is precisely where your argument folds.

          Again, you state: ‘it doesn’t make Christians look very Christian’.

          It does make Christians look Christian. We are to discriminate against a whole range of immoral behaviours. Christianity is exclusive not inclusive.

          • TheBelltower

            For businesses that engage in this behavior, or allow employees that do, you can expect that they will risk losing their ability to continue operating. As it should be.

            It’s time for me to disengage from this conversation. Thankfully I am surrounded by decent Christians, and not people like you who endorse this style of nastiness.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            I have no intention of being ‘nasty’. It is the subject matter which is most distasteful.

          • Kevin Quillen

            making a wedding cake, doing the flowers, taking the photos, etc. is participating in the wedding. It is acquiescing to the marriage. A queer marriage is sinful to a Christian. It would be similar to a Christian condoning the lifestyle of a drunkard. Queer is a choice. I can refuse to condone a behavior that is a choice.

        • Wayne Cook

          So, in your opinion, “nuanced debate about the Bible doesn’t matter”. Nice to know. That’s what a few lawyers said to me too. I fired two of them. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, no matter the cost. Your last comment reeked of Liberation Theology. Bye.

          • TheBelltower

            Nope. Nuanced debate with employees about the Bible, who want to get into discussion about why they can’t do their job, is not going to happen on my watch. If they attempt to deny customer service by going down that road, they’re out of a job. Your lawyers were right.

        • Elizabeth

          Except in cases where religion prohibts a behavior or activity.

        • Aliquantillus

          What would you do if you had a bakery, and a client asked you to bake a cake with on top of it a blasphemy written in chocolate letters? Would you make this cake for him?

      • Wayne Cook

        For the last 70 years, any business had the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. Only when the LGBT became culturally fashionable did that become illegal.

        I closed my own business when I was told I could no longer make those decisions. That is the black flower of socialism.

  • biblegaL1

    And yet…Muslims don’t have to deal with alcoholic products in the course of THEIR employment and can demand time off for their prayer times several times a day. And Mr. Brown, you write: “In the aftermath of the Holocaust, courageous Christian leader Basilea Schlink rebuked the silence of Christians immediately after Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass (Nov. 9, 1938), when the Nazis set synagogues on fire and vandalized Jewish places of business, also killing and beating some Jewish victims as well.” And THEN say: “And while I am not comparing gay activists and their allies to Nazis, and I am not comparing the Washington court’s ruling to Kristallnacht, I am comparing the silence of Christians then and now.” How are YOU different from the Christian leaders who back off and compromise the gospel and don’t call a spade a spade- namely that homosexuality IS a sin? This IS indeed FACISM by the LGBTQ’s and the ACLU AND the SCOTUS!

    • Wayne Cook

      Muslims break the law on alchohol consumption in every Mideast country…they’ve left their garbage behind as evidence. There isn’t a special interest group in the country which comes up smelling other than poo when one looks behind the curtain. LGBT (doctors report fights in their offices while counseling. Estimates are that more like 80% of all gay marriages end in “adultery”), Environmental (the 350 tons of garbage left behind the recent XL protest yields the lie of their concern), Islamists, Sharia adherents, (Saudis have the highest number of hits on child pornagraphy sites in the world), socialists (including Soros, Dems, RINOS, Pedos, etc in DC, more than 70,000 suspected of cheating on taxes, money laundering, bribery, child trafficking, etc).

  • David Breault

    I really hope the people not selling flowers or cakes to gay people for their wedding also go ask all the divorcees that they serviced to bring back the goods. Last I checked, being gay and getting a divorce are both sinful.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      1. Homosexuality is sinful.
      2. Divorce is not necessarily sinful – it depends on whether or not the divorce was on Biblical grounds.

      • Elizabeth

        And the divorce doesn’t usually involve the florist or the baker

      • Kevin Quillen

        please use the term “queer” and not homosexual, lesbian, or lgbtwxyz. They are “abnormal”, which is the definition of queer. Using other terms legitimizes them.

    • A Voice in the Wilderness

      I’m sorry but if some business doesn’t want my money I will gladly go to any number of other businesses who would gladly serve me. And I would feel goo about it. Face it…this was a sting operation of sorts. Trying to send a political message to us all.

    • Leila Miller

      Of course the florist should be able to decline to participate in any event she deem sinful or objectionable. It’s not up to the government to decide. That’s the point.

  • Susan Kay Smolinski

    Muslims aren’t held to the same laws. Go into any Muslims bakery it flower shop and they will refuse to do the same with no apologies. But the aclu never sites them. Ever!

    • Wayne Cook

      Yes…seen three reports to that effect in the last year. Tillerson is already cleaning house at State, Pruitt doing the same at the EPA.

    • Mike 1231

      If you fight with Muslim, you might just end up a head.

      • funnymoney123

        I was thinking the same thing. You can end up with a target on your back if you go against Muslims.

        • Mike 1231

          Ever notice news stories seem to be completely uninformed that the public are looking at the videos on the internet of Muslims decapitating children, and dozens of people, and stoning women for adultery and ripping a page from the Koran (a false accusation). We have seen women burned alive in cages, sold as sex slaves, chained and beat with sticks, shot with guns. But the news stories just ignore the reality that everyone can plainly see. There must be a politically correct list of taboo truths that are forbidden to be acknowledged because people just “can’t handle the truth”. Well, we already know it and we can handle it.

    • ForceMajuere

      You make a Good Point; one way to ‘dissuade’ someone of using your services when you disagree with their lifestyle choices is to hang a picture of the Prophet Mohammad on the wall. And no Muslim(unlike ‘christian’) would ever argue against the intended meaning of the Koran when the Prophet tells them what to do with “homosexuals”. But Unfortunately, many ‘christian’ pastors have argued in favor of “Gay Marriage”, and given Amicus Curiae briefings to them; describing the ‘apologetics’ one would use to substantiate such a ruling. So if “Martin Luther”, or “Charles Wesley” is the picture you hang in your store, understand their successors have warped the True Meaning of the text into something they find more compatible with their beliefs; using the interpretive rules taught in most seminary courses to disagree with your opinion.

  • Rocky Fickes

    This reminds my so much of Daniel and the lions den. Do not give up your faith grandma.

  • Robert Harder

    The judges went against the constitution and are wrong they are not the law of the land. They should be held as traitors of the constitution

    • IKD38

      All this stuff happened on Obama’s watch! We never had discrimination like this before, not that I can recall!
      Obama made up his own laws as he went, and this is the result! Trump can overturn this mess! He just overturned the Bathroom iussue!

  • azsxdcf1

    I AM outraged… and I AM going to post on social media that the sounds of the silence of the “hypocritical Christian” is too deafening to stand! We are FREE from this arbitrary socialism… damn it!

    The ACLU better take the exact issue – and sue for everything they own – with Muslim business owners – OR ELSE they have exposed an obvious prejudice!

    Where are the true Christians lawyers! – or is THAT term an oxymoron? Do “we” need money? or balls?

    • Lynne Knight

      I hadn’t thought of that. that is very true. why haven’t they sued Muslim businesses for not selling them bacon or non-halal food like the Muslims are trying to do with making the stores not carry these things for religious purposes.

  • ForceMajuere

    The Problem with this case, as with any and all other cases like it, is that it pits 1st Amendment rights(Freedom of Speech), against the 14th Amendment(Right of Equal Protection). Because the Courts designated “Gay Marriage” as a “right”, it is afforded “Equal Protection” under the Constitution, and whether or not you agree with Gay Marriage, you must, as a person or entity doing commerce afford them “Equal Protection”(ie:sell them flowers, bake them a cake, dispense contraceptives or abortion inducing medication) whether or not it violates your conscience in doing so. This was decided in the Loving v Virginia ruling, which ruled that a Wedding Chapel could not deny an interracial couple their services, even though Virginia at the time had anti-miscegenation laws on it’s books(since repealed). Loving sued and won, and also collected damages. A Business Owner therefore must Violate Their Conscience when a Protected Class demands the services of their establishment-the only exceptions are Churches and Religious Institutions, which under the 501c3 are not ‘technically’ a business, and therefore not subject to the Equal Protection Clause. Because of “Judicial Activism”, the “Gay Marriage” advocates did an “end around” the Constitutional Requirement of an Amendment, of which requires the ratification of 2/3rds of State Legislatures, it is MUCH EASIER to find a “Sympathetic Judge”, who would give you standing to defend your supposed ‘right’, and process the case to the Supreme Court; where 5 Judges(a simple majority) can REMOVE the RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF CITIZENS! Scalia, in his dissent called this “Judicial Tyranny”, saying, “No taxation, without representation, therefore no social transformation without representation”. The Worst Part is ‘churches’ represented a significant voice in supporting this legislation-that’s where the Real Scandal lies.

    • No it doesn’t. Nothing in the 14th Ammendment says that a private company must do anything, hire or serve anyone . Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment nullifies the rights of freedom of conscience, religion, property, or free association.
      nothing anywhere else in the Constitution gives the federal government any power over this and states are likewise prevented from interfering with these rights.
      Sadly, the US government starting with that courtsaid pay no heed to the Constitution or original intent. instead, judge after judge has made lawless ruling showing contempt on the court and Constitution. And too many Americans think are a krytocracy.

      • ForceMajuere

        At 1st reading, one would think so. But the Obergefell ruling, which borrowed heavily from the Loving ruling, established that there is. The arguments made in both rulings by opponents was “religion tradition and Natural Law contravene against such a measure”. The advocates successfully argued that “religious tradition” alone has no merit-based on the Loving ruling where the Southern Baptist’s then tenet against interracial marriages was invalid, and that “Natural Law”, which says that the union of a man and a woman only can biologically produce a child, has not taken into consideration that a ‘homosexual couple’ with in-vitro therapy can produce a biological child, just a heterosexual couple with the same therapy can. And existing adoption laws don’t negate marriage for the infertile. Our Constitution doesn’t mention the word “God” in the document once; the inference is that “Natural Law” is “God’s Law”, made from Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, down through Jefferson, Adams, Madison, has been ‘trumped’ by Hobbesian advocates who say “Social Order” is the highest achievement of government, and the Gay Marriage advocates have argued successfully in Court that just as “Racial Equality” brought the greatest level of peace to society, so also “Marriage Equality” will bring the greatest level of peace. In pursuing this argument, the advocates and the Court left ‘vague’ what the definition of “Marriage” is; it can be man and man, woman and woman, man +4 women, woman +4 men, man + truck, woman + goldfish, the future court cases are going to have to “nail the Court down” in establishing what constitutes a legal “Marriage” where the exception clause of the 14th Amendment will apply. If a wealthy Heiress decides to ‘marry’ her Pomeranian and bypass the statutes concerning disposition of assets, will her successors prevail in Court against such an arrangement-Stay Tuned.

        • I would be happy to discuss the lunacy of the Obergefell ruling and how the anti-misceganation position of Southern Baptists was actually anti-Christian ignoring their own Bible.
          But none of that is relevant here. nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to involve itself in a private transaction forcing a person to do business with another.

          • ForceMajuere

            Unfortunately, the Courts disagree with you; and since Loving(and actually the Civil Rights Legislation following the MLK protests in the ’60’s) the Courts have held that regardless of your ‘religious convictions’, you as a Business Owner MUST provide Equal Protection(access to your business, your dining facilities, your restrooms, drinking fountains, etc) if you are going to be licensed as a business doing commerce. Obviously, those that aren’t don’t pay taxes, but then don’t enjoy the ‘benefits’ of the protection under the law. Nobody(except for those who were wrong in their interpretation of anti-miscegenation) were offended by this, but what folks don’t understand is the Courts did not ‘arrive’ at their decision based on a ‘Religious Principle’, but a Secular one; which is “The Greater Good of Society”-a ‘Hobbesian’ Principle, trumps Natural Law. And also, what has changed is the Courts willingness to act, despite any Legislative or Executive Review. The Framers of our Constitution saw the Courts “balancing” the Power between an overreaching Legislative or Executive Branch by providing Judicial Review; when a case is introduced and a question of it’s legality needs a decision before it can be properly executed. Marbury v Madison-the case all judicial activists use, was based on a case brought before the Supreme Court where the power of the Executive Branch(in this case paying for Marbury’s cost to secure his appointment), was not determined by the Constitutional Authority granted to the Executive Branch, after Marbury ‘lost’ his appointment when Adam’s term ended. John Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court in it’s duty needed to pay Marbury, and that in doing so provided ‘oversight’ where Constitutional Limitations had expired. But Marbury had to provide a “Writ of Mandamus”, no such “writ” was given during the current immigration crisis, or when Kim Davies, County Clerk in Kentucky, who refused to sign Marriage Licenses for Gay couples, was arrested. The Courts are acting “proactively”, which is a clear violation of the Constitution, and no one can stop them. Judicial “activism”, and it’s willingness to side with the few aggrieved, against the will of many has led to “Defense of Marriage” legislation being overruled and overturned, to “Right to Marry”-which can mean with a or any number of individuals seeking legal status for their relationship, and you, Poor Business Owner, obligated to “Recognize Their Right”, regardless of what ‘moral creed’ you adhere to.

          • ForceMajuere

            True…..if one doesn’t engage in State Regulated Commerce. A garage sale or a “Sale By Owner”(as long as it isn’t Real Estate). A Craigslist or Ebay sale, as long as it doesn’t collect taxes or invoke legal protection(Let the Buyer Beware). But ANY Business licensed in the State(or Municipality) MUST adhere to the Equal Protection Clause, and are severely penalized if they don’t. A person with disabilities is a Protected Class, and if they apply for a position within your organization that they have the training and skills for, you must make the necessary accommodation for their hiring, and not hire someone else, if you have advertised for that position. Businesses of a certain size must make “Gender Neutral” bathrooms available if they are a Public Business and Customers would ordinarily use the restrooms at their facility. The Civil Rights Act and the Loving Ruling “clarified” the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment-striking down the “Separate-but equal” ruling of the Plessy v Ferguson. At 1st glance it seems merely to confirm the Scriptural Mandate: “Do Unto Others, As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”.(Lev. 19:18/Matt. 7:12). But that’s not how the Courts reasoned, they reasoned that a protected class of individual has a right, and Due Process must be afforded by society to insure that right. So regardless of what you think of gays, blacks, handicapped individuals, or those with different nationality, religious, or ethnic backgrounds, you must afford them “Equal Protection”, or stand to get sued in court and lose. Your 1st Amendment Right allows you to “speak your mind”, however, the 14th Amendment tells you how to conduct your business.

        • Kevin Quillen

          so because the court ruled makes it right? How about Dredd Scott? Courts are often wrong and were in this case. The can of worms you suggest proves the point.

    • Kevin Quillen

      “queer” is a choice! Does not equate to ethnicity or gender. Period.

  • Totc

    All you guys in the comment section. Imagine for a while that your religion doesn’t matter, and all you’re left with is human solidarity. This issue is pretty easy once your religion is gone.

    • Leila Miller

      Everything is “easy” if God is gone. You can do whatever you want. And I do mean whatever you want. Sorry, that’s not the world I want to live in.

      If you think a little deeper: How’d that “human solidarity” in atheist USSR work out? Or how’s it working in North Korea? Cuba? China? No religion to worry about. Paradise! Nothing but “human solidarity”!

      • Totc

        You talk like you’ve never read an argument against your position. I will elaborate for you. The aformentioned cases are what happened when you make gods out of people. You have no right to forget what people did when religion was in charge this case is another nail in the coffin of your faith. Which I’m quite glad you have but you only have the right to apply it to yourself. And what a damning argument do you mean to say that if you didn’t believe in God you would then do unspeakable things or would you not know what decency is.

        • IKD38

          This comment is really stupid. First of all don’t hide your face if you’re so allwise and godless.
          I’m with Leila Miller! Without God without Jesus Christ there is Chaos , we’re experiencing it right now.
          Government has brought us to this Chaos, Brainwashing our kids. Look at our streets today, our Entertainment, everything is perverted. One World – One Order, Hitler tried that, I guess that didn’t work out so well either. You and your Solidarity, go peddle your goods somewhere else!
          You don’t have the right to tell anyone to keep quiet about our faith in Jesus Christ!
          Our Church Leaders are getting wrapped up in this same Crap. Why don’t you preach to the Islamic world and set them straight! Go to Europe you’ll be happy there! Kindness and Solidarity will surely get you killed! I will pray for you, may God the Almighty give you true wisdom and forgiveness,

        • Kevin Quillen

          Totc; how would you determine what is wrong without “religion”? Please explain it to me.

          • Totc

            Millimetric progress, although there are some things that are innate in us that altruistic as well as sadistic wether you’re religious or not. Example. We know of no penal code that allows for theft, murder, or perjury. Some of these penal codes are non-religious, like our own. Whereby God is only mentioned where he may be limited or flat out denied jurisdiction. An example you may give some thought to, if the settlers from Egypt to Sinai weren’t under the impression that murder, theft, and perjury were wrong they never would have made it there. Which means they either didn’t need God to tell them that these were wrong or they already knew which means why do you need a God to tell you what’s right and wrong. The basic answer is The Golden Rule. But think about how this would apply to someone who absolutely loves the pain of others. Which is the extent of the gold rule. This is where that millimetric progression comes in. We try to make laws that curb bad behaviors and promote good ones. Sometimes we get it wrong, but we don’t reference the bible when we make a mistake, and if is mentioned it’s a token gesture to kowtow anyone that will follow anyone that says Jesus in a speech. As for innate behaviours, we are a selfish species. This is a good thing. We want behaviors out of other people that benefit us. Over time this has led to the protection but not outright extortion of this need in us. Altruism works in the same way but in different direction. Even animals exhibit some of the ladder behavior, with and over whelming mix of the former.

          • Totc

            Part 2. How do you gauge what bad behavior is or a good one? Does this action inflict suffering or not? I’ll assume you’ve read the bible enough to know that it’s rife with violence thus making it an unfit arbiter for right or wrong action. Violence, as you may be acutely aware of with Islam, is not justified even though it’s motivation is religious.Why does this matter to you? Christianity is largely non violent in the west. Why? Because it has been distilled. Which means you pick and choose what’s right and wrong with the bible. So do you know better than God? You evoke the God of the gaps argument, by perhaps now thinking that mixing fabrics or eating shellfish isn’t a sin. I’ll counterpose a question to you. How do you know what’s right based solely on your faith?

          • Kevin Quillen

            Totc; I understand the Bible. I know that the old covenant is over, replaced by the new. So many uninformed people throw up obscure old testament verses to make a point trying to show the hypocrisy of Christians. You are smarter than that. My right and wrong comes from the teachings and instructions of Jesus and His Apostles. It is very simple really. The Word says do not, and I do not. The Word says do, and I do. Now let me ask you a very pointed question; If I understand you correctly, you say a behavior is wrong if it inflicts suffering and good if it does not. Here is the question….walking down a hall in a hospital you come to an open door to a room where a beautiful woman, in fact the most beautiful you ever saw, is lying unclothed on a bed. As you look at her a doctor comes by and comments that she is comatose, has been for months. Knows nothing, feels nothing, does not even know she exists. Would you enter, close the door and have your way with her? Seriously. No suffering is inflicted. She does not care or know. Would you? If not, why not?

          • Totc

            I say the old testament verses to bring up a thought to you. Matthew 5.18. It still holds. As for your question I, my conscious would suffer. I would suffer because of golden rule rules, would I be okay if this person were me. My autonomy is violated. The attractive nature of the person is a non issue. There is no biblical restriction against rape, or incest for that matter. You say that you do what the bible says but there is much more to life than the bible and situations where it does not apply. Not too much though.

          • Kevin Quillen

            first, what is a conscience? Second, you err using Matt 5:18. Heaven and earth that Jesus spoke of did in fact pass away in 70 A.D..When the temple was destroyed. Heaven and earth here represents the old covenant(heaven) and the Jews as being Gods “special” people(earth). The New Heavens and New Earth are the new covenant and the church. The church is all believers, Jew and Gentile. Ephesians 2:14-16 says that Jesus broke down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and made “one man” of the two. Please read 2 Peter 3:10. The “elements” here means the law. Look it up, it is quite informative.

          • Kevin Quillen

            are you telling that “altruism” and “sadism” evolved? Without a Creator they must have. You “know” that is not true. Read Romans 1:20 and following. Every man know basic right from wrong. It was placed in them by the Creator. Some choose to ignore it to their detriment. That is why I do not believe in atheists. They know God exists, they just choose to pretend He does not exist so they can live how they want to. Evolution is a dying theory. What will you do when it is finally acknowledged by the scientific community to be fallacy? Soft tissue in dino bones, irreducible complexity, and specific design are killing it.

          • Totc

            There are things in us that will perpetually stay opaque to the sharpest minds But this does not mean there is a cop out as if to say “well I don’t know so God did it.” There are obvious evolutionary benefits to helping our fellow creatures, if you were in need you would want it from someone who help even if it means no economic benefit to them. This is by no means a compulsory behaviour or should it ever be. Good sir you’re rambling and missing the point. Everyone lives how they want to. You don’t go out and make sure every gay person knows theyre an abomination or have I been talking to Westborough the whole time. Do you find them reprehensible or not and if so by what criteria do you judge them? Certainly nothing in the bible. You’re killing your argument in your own terms you don’t need faith in something if you know it’s real. I don’t know how to respond to evolution being wrong. Absolutely none of biology or medicine would work if evolution were wrong. Are vaccinated or take and medicine thank evolution as a determining factor in how our biology works. I don’t have to worry about it being false because the entire way we are alive is predicated upon it being true wether you choose to believe in it or not. Your arguments at the end are Ken ham style God of the gaps arguments. Which amounts to, I don’t know , so God did it. Best you bud.

          • Kevin Quillen

            I do not believe in the God of the gaps. That is nonsense. No comment about how supposedly bones millions of years old could have both soft tissue and carbon 14 in them?

          • Kevin Quillen

            “We try to make laws that curb bad behaviors and promote good ones.” Your quote. So in your opinion, homosexual behavior is a good behavior? STD stats say otherwise, lifespan says otherwise, and the fact that if we all became queer, the species would die out in one generation. Good behavior????

          • Totc

            I would say that homosexual behavior is no one’s business. Unless contraction of an STD leads to the pain, suffering etc. of another that is unaware of this affliction and the offending party is. Which is actually a law homosexual or not. As far as dying out yes that would happen but it will not happen. This has never happened.

          • Kevin Quillen

            by admitting that homosexual behavior by all would in fact kill us all off says that it is not natural, i.e. evolutionary. survival of the species and all that. By that way, how did the sexes evolve? would not the “parts” have to evolve simultaneously? Without plan, purpose, or design. Would not the survival of the species be enhanced by the ability of each individual to reproduce by themselves? Why male and female? Not very efficient.

          • yael

            Homosexuality is no one’s business but they insist on making it everyone’s business.They are hellbent on trying to indoctrinate children, which is horrifying. If they kept their perversion to themselves, things would be alot more peaceful.

        • Leila Miller

          Oh my dear Totc: I’ve been dialoguing with atheists and secularists for 22 years. I assure you, I’ve heard the arguments. It is often the case that my secular friends have never heard millennia of philosophical thought and natural law arguments. I don’t blame you, I blame a deficient educational system, of which I was also a victim.

          Please tell me you understand that exponentially more blood has been shed in the name of “no religion” than in any religious war? And frankly, secularism is as dogmatic as any other religion. More so, even.

          When there is no objective “moral law” (a morality that originates outside of us), then we only have subjective morality; the only “law” that exists, then, is “might makes right” and “he with the biggest guns wins” (and thus determines the morality of that society). You are intelligent enough to understand this. Show me how it can be any other way?

        • Leila Miller

          PS: I’m spread too thin, at the moment, but I’d love to dialogue with you privately. littlecatholicbubble@gmail.com (my blog name and email name are tongue-in-cheek, by the way. I have found that too many leftists are humorless due to their dogma, and so they misunderstand it.)

      • yael

        Well said!

    • IKD38

      WRONG!

    • Kevin Quillen

      human solidarity can say anything is right. I think you are referring “humanism”.

      • Totc

        I would think they kind of go hand in hand with one another. I would surmise that what you intend to say is that I may have solidarity with boko haram or the ilk if human solidarity at its basest is nothing more than a yes philosophy if I agree with what another human is doing or about. I guess what I intend to say in reference to this discussion is to say that if it benefits mankind as a whole no reference to any faith needs to be made. There are many caveats and nuances to it, but again none related to any faith has to be made here for the argument to work.

        • Dant e

          I disagree, people don`t agree on what benefits us much of the time, we are all lost and deceived and only God is Truth, the Way and the Life. You see we don`t just know what is the right way, the truth for us in this life but we also know what those things are for our eternal life. The more I learn about God and His Word(the Bible), the more I realize this, that we may think some things are ok or good but they lead to a bad end, even when I at first don`t like what im reading and hearing I know it is the truth and to refuse the truth is to deceive oneself through pride. Man has from the beginning and always will have a predisposition to going their own way, thinking they can be their own gods and that they know what is right for them.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Stalin attempted to eradicate Christianity: Soviet society collapsed.

  • Johnathan Long

    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.
    Jim Elliot

  • Tony Barillas

    “But when a Christian florist politely declines a gay couple’s request to design the floral arrangements for their “wedding” ceremony…”

    The issue I have with this statement is that I see no reason to think that designing a floral arrangement for a gay wedding is incompatible with Christian belief and obeying God. Is it not true that it is the gay couple, not the Christian, who is desiring and purposing the product for the end-goal of celebrating what the Scriptures deem sinful? Whoever originates the inclination to celebrate what the bible states as sinful is the one who is desiring a sinful act, and consequently brings it about. The Christian, at this stage, steers clear of any sinful doing. The key question is: What particular action leads to the Christian finding himself culpable of sin in this scenario? Is the Christian complicit, even inadvertently, in endorsing same-sex marriage by providing a public service? The Christian is hardly desiring, much less purposing, such product towards a sinful end; and God knows this! It is the gay couple who is ultimately guilty of these intentional actions, which God will hold accountable.

    Christians, as I see it, should indiscriminately provide their public goods and services in accordance with local city and state laws. No Christian can ultimately control how their product(s) will be used and to what purposes – be it for the common good or to celebrate a secular ritual. However, if a Christian still finds this to be morally objectionable, they would be better off setting up shop at a local ministry rather than the public sector. It seems that Baronelle would have been better off providing (if this is what is meant above by “participating”?) floral arrangements, and not violate her religious conscience. For, I find such service to be compatible with Christian belief. Denying such services to sinners is a terrible, not to mention costly, misunderstanding of how divine judgment is adjudicated in such circumstances.

    • Kevin Quillen

      “I find such service to be compatible with Christian belief.” Your quote. My conscience tells me otherwise. We are to call out sin, not legitimize it. That is why I never say “gay, lesbian or lbgtwxyz” I use the term “queer”. Why? Because the definition of “queer” is “abnormal”. That is what they are.

      • Tony Barillas

        Kevin,

        “My Conscience tells me otherwise.”

        But why think that your “conscience” has any binding authority on anyone. Only divine revelation can efficaciously determine what’s sinful or not. You don’t engage the argument from *desire* as I laid it out. As such, nothing I said is inconsistent with your objection “not [to] legitimize” sin. It all comes down to *Who* is *DESIRING* the celebration of same-sex marriage?

        Consider: “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own **desire**. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1.14).

        In the scenario above, therefore, is it not the gay couple who originates the desire to celebrate and live out same-sex marriage! If James 1.14 is a fundamental text (not your “own conscious”, mind you) on how divine judgment is played out, or how *culpability* is justifiably traced, explain how is the Christian complicit in such circumstances?

        • Kevin Quillen

          “But why think that your “conscience” has any binding authority on
          anyone. Only divine revelation can efficaciously determine what’s sinful
          or not.” your quote. That inner voice is conscience. It is what Paul speaks of in Romans 1. One can choose to ignore it. This is sin.

          • Tony Barillas

            Kevin,

            You ducked my argument yet again! (siiiiighhhhh). Seems you’re inept at tracing an argument. You’re also good of making naked assertions without any argument to support.

    • motorsportsnz

      Would your Saviour Jesus do as you suggest ?
      He did not gain followers by agreeing with the fallen lucifers requests
      He said
      It is written
      4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

      5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

      6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

      God would not marry a man to a man

      • sph777
        • ivymurr

          if it requires the florist or photographer or cake maker to go to the ceremony for set up, basically participating in the ceremony, then yes it can be construed as going against your religious beliefs. that is the difference in these cases.

          • Dant e

            The issue is the participating in the promotion or endorsing of a sinful act, regardless of being there or not. She felt she would be and so declined.

        • Kevin Quillen

          please try to use a little logic here. Surely you can see the difference. Doing a cake for a wedding, doing floral arrangements, photos, making a wedding dress, catering etc. is PARTICIPATION! She is being forced to violate her religious principles, something our constitution says one cannot be forced to do. Do not come at me with race type issues, queer is a CHOICE!

          • sph777

            Kevin,
            I’m very sympathetic with the woman’s situation, and I agree–I don’t believe she should be forced but I’m speaking about this kind of situation and I believe I’m using much more than a “little logic”. I did wedding photos for years and I can think of many times I wouldn’t advocate the couple being together but would also say I wasn’t “participating” any more or less. Of course we can disagree here–let’s disagree agreeably.

  • Seektruth

    The irony is history states pilgrims fled from their countries to America due to religious persecution because of how they practiced Christianity.

    There seems to be a sort of similar divide today. The non practicing Christian vs the practicing ones. Likely why main stream Christianity may be quiet on this one.

    Clarification: Non practicing Christian is a Sunday Christian, never having truly believed in the Bible or having attempted to understand it. Nevertheless feels comfortable identifying with the group.

    Being a true Christian from day one of its existence was never a comfortable one. A lot of uncomfortable decisions are made to align with the God’s word and truths in the Bible. To do our best to live in accordance to our beliefs with a true conscience.

    If this is how Christians will be treated, then we no longer have religious freedom to practice what we believe.

  • Randolph Mills

    God’s speed everyone . The time is near.

    • Kevin Quillen

      for what exactly?

  • Ladyprof

    There are only 8 sitting justices since the Scalia seat remains open. At the US Supreme Court level to decline to hear a case is not to affirm the lower court ruling. Rather it’s a calculated risk as to whether by hearing the case the outcome will be improved with a new decision. I can certainly understand why Justices Thomas, Alito and Roberts did not want to risk affirming the lower court ruling thus imposing the outcome nationally.

  • Donald King

    I concur that the silence of most Christians who are remaining silent rather than standing up for the widespread injustice, dishonesty, discrimination, harmful policies that will cause suffering and hardship, abuse of power, degradation, and a reversal of helping people who are vulnerable as an institution created to provide for the welfare of our social community is a travesty and demonstration of a failure to follow the teachings of their faith. The Washington Supreme Court went over the edge and violated this person’s religious freedom under the First Amendment and there should have been an outcry and action taken by people of faith. If this continues it may lead to greater tyranny and a failure of our democracy to protect fundamental rights.

  • Mark G

    I still cannot believe I had to read the comments where the Pope said there is no such thing as muslim terrorists. How long before people wake up to what is happening?

    Let me just say how odd it is for me that this is the first time since 1407 (yes 1407) that there are two Popes alive. Wouldn’t you know it? This Pope Francis (first one ever not from Europe) hails from the region of the world where LIBERATION theology (socialism) reigns. Where the notion of REDISTRIBUTION of wealth is the religion. It is all guised under this notion of “caring for the poor.”

    Every single Pope of the 20th century were against socialism. They saw it for what it is. How many times have I had to see others saying we have taken him out of context. Or he did not really mean what he said. I know he received a hammer and sickle communist symbol in the form of a crucifix from Bolivian leader communist Evo Morales. I know he invited him with Bernie Sanders (self promoted pure socialist, actually a pure marxist) along with other leaders last Summer.

    I know the Pope went to Cuba and yucked it up with the Castros and he did not meet with any of the dissidents who were imprisoned. The Castros have never uttered one word of sorrow or regret for their systemaitc murders. No condemnation at all from the Vatican under this Pope. None. If there is any, please correct me here. Maybe there is.

    We know the Pope has spoken out against the FREE MARKET in typical coded socialist propaganda speech. Know whenever he or they talk about the unfair treatment of the “poor” they are talking about socialism (redistribution of wealth.) All false notions that seduce the masses.

    Jesus never said anything about relying on Rome or municipalities to provide the poor. He said feed the poor cloth the naked. Not to protest for someone else to do it.

    I am very discouraged and yes I am Catholic. For reasons too. This has me very concerned and I have been for a while now.

    • Kevin Quillen

      you should leave the church. It does not represent you. I do not go to church at all. But love the Lord and serve Him to the best of my ability. I think too often churches are an excuse for one to just go along and believe what is taught and never learn truth independently. This is why there is so much confusion and foolish teachings.

  • A talk show host could descriminate against a gospel singer,and got away with it,Bruce Spingfield a singer refused to perform in North Carolina vecause of its bathroom law that refused to allow men in women restroom,he got away with it,lots of examples like that.Now a florist qho could not violate her conscience have to pay the penalty.She should have done a shaby job,put lots of biblical verses on it,just to tell the sodomites to take their business somewhere else.This is travestry of justice

  • Jen

    But when a Christian florist politely declines a gay couple’s request to design the floral arrangements for their “wedding” ceremony, she is taken to court and threatened with the loss of her business and all her personal assets.

    Why did the florist refuse to service this couple? Because they are GAY! That is discrimination. Period! It’s not about religious liberty.

    What is it about being gay that the florist refuses to service the couple? Isn’t it because they believe that being gay is a “sin”? If you say that’s not the reason, then you lie.

    So, if the belief is that it’s a sin, then why not refuse others who come in to purchase services because you are taught ALL PEOPLE ARE SINNERS?

    Hypocrites! You like pointing your fingers to others rather than taking the plank from your own eyes.

    • Dant e

      That is incorrect, she served and even employed homosexuals, she did not want to participate in a sinful act herself by endorsing homosexual marriage. If a person asked her to make flowers for a campaign or other event promoting or endorsing any other sinful act then she would also refuse.

    • Tony Barillas

      Great point. If goods of commerce can be denied to to certain type of sinner (i.e., Gays), why stop there? Why not also deny services to adulterers, drunks, thieves, murderers, etc.?

      • Kevin Quillen

        the obvious difference is…….being asked to be a participant in a
        queer wedding is not equal to selling a product to a queer. We can and
        should sell to anyone. But if some one came in and wanted a cake to
        celebrate an abortion we would have to decline as Christians, it would
        be the same as condoning abortion. Get it? I do not mean to be
        offensive by using the word “queer”. Queer means “abnormal”, and they
        are. Using the terms the lefties use detracts from the truth. One does not “participate” in adultery by selling to them.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Good point: why should the poor shopkeeper deny services and goods to persistent thieves?

    • Kevin Quillen

      the obvious difference is…….being asked to be a participant in a queer wedding is not equal to selling a product to a queer. We can and should sell to anyone. But if some one came in and wanted a cake to celebrate an abortion we would have to decline as Christians, it would be the same as condoning abortion. Get it? I do not mean to be offensive by using the word “queer”. Queer means “abnormal”, and they are. Using the terms the lefties use detracts from the truth.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Yours is a common argument. You pre-suppose that inconsistency is the critical point that arguments turn on.

      We, Judeao-Christians, pre-suppose that it is ‘believe and repent’.

    • Carol

      Jen, you are mistaken when you say she refused service to this couple because they are gay, she had served these two customers for many years . It’s about the ceremony of marriage. Her religious beliefs (as 99% Christians would agree,) is that marriage as God defines it is between one man and one woman. Period. Her belief to honor God by honoring His definition of marriage is her religious right. She should not have to give up her long time belief that any marriage definition other than the one God instituted in the beginning is dishonoring to God. Man has tried to change the law about marriage but that doesn’t change what God says. And she shouldn’t have to give up her religious right in order to be a business owner.

  • Joe_Calgary

    We all have our own walk with God (as believers) in terms of being obedient to what He is calling us to. However some things are not open to interpretation. When your enemy asks for your shirt give him your coat also. When he asks you to carry his pack one mile carry it two.” (My paraphrase of Matt 5:40,41) Perhaps a Christ like response would have been “for sure I will provide you a cake, it will be the best cake in the name of Jesus and I know a Christian florist who would give you a great deal on flowers too!” Just saying.

    • Dant e

      God doesn`t want us to help in a sinful act, endorsing that sin is not a sin. Jesus talked with sinners but He did not endorse or participate in their sin, He told them to stop their sinning and follow Him. The verses you stated are about helping them, not to harm them which is what one would be doing by endorsing their sin.

      • Kevin Quillen

        love means calling out the sin and trying to save the sinner.
        good job Dante.

      • Joe_Calgary

        Perhaps you have read where Jesus said “In so much as you do this to these the least of my brothers you do it also to me.” To give a cup of water to the thirsty, food to the hungry and clothing to the naked in His name is what separates His sheep from the goats. To offer up a service of love in His name is not to participate in their sin but rather to demonstrate the abundant love and grace of God. Do not fear for fear is the opposite of love. You are assured of your standing with God as a believer then don’t be afraid to be a witness and a blessing in His name.

        • Dant e

          Again, helping someone to sin is a sin, not just for yourself but also in helping and encouraging another to sin and to keep on sinning, even denying that the sin is a sin by the act. If I give a cup of water to the thirsty, food to the hungry and clothing to the naked in His name I help/heal/do good for the person which is love. Love is not helping harm a person by participating in and endorsing their sin, loving them is warning them of the danger ahead if they follow their current path.

          • Joe_Calgary

            Did you note that Jesus never said feed the righteous hungry or clothe the righteous poor? Do you suppose that each of those people he cited were sinners too? He came for the sick not the healthy. What are the two greatest commandments? Love the Lord your God with all your heart strength and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Love wins over fear everytime! We are commanded to love not judge. If sin is your baseline for service then we are all in trouble. As an example what if doctors decided to stop treating us because of our sin? I know who I am in Christ and am persuaded that ministering His grace to a non-believer is not endorsing their sin but in fact endorsing God’s love for them.

          • Dant e

            Jesus never said feed the righteous hungry or cloth the righteous poor, nor did He say hurt the unrighteous hungry or the unrighteous poor. Jesus came to heal the sick, not direct them to the path of destruction and harm.

            If we love the Lord our God and our neighbour as ourselves we will share with those on the path to destruction the truth, not allow them to think that their sin is not sin at all and worse, participate in it ourselves.

            The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, Jesus said to the adulterous woman that He did not judge her for her sin but told her to go and sin no more, the same with the lame man who He healed and others.

            You are incorrect in your assertion that we are not to judge, we are to judge righteously, judging the sin, not the person.

            Sin is not my baseline for service but it is part of the whole service, we are commanded to preach the gospel to the unbelievers in love. Many rejected and hated Jesus and His followers because they called people to repentance and declared the Truth. Whilst Jesus is perfect love He is also perfect righteousness, you cannot have one without the other.

            Your analogy of a doctor deciding to stop treating us because of our sin is in error, I wouldn`t stop treating someone because of their sin, I would treat them and warn them of the consequences of their sin, that is love. Ministering Gods grace to an unbeliever is not endorsing their sin, correct, but endorsing their sin in order to minister Gods grace is endorsing their sin.

          • Joe_Calgary

            Thank you, you got to where I wanted you to go; we are to warn those headed for destruction but if we are not ministering to those in need we have no basis to provide that warning. I cannot expect a sinner to seek me through my intolerance but like Christ I make myself nothing so that I can seek and save the lost. Isn’t that the whole essence of what Christ and Christians is all about? Reaching out to those, who because of their sin, cannot reach out to us? I was drawn to my Savior because of His grace not His judgement or by any act of my own volition. You cannot require from sinners that which you were unable to do yourself; namely gain salvation by your own strength.

          • Dant e

            Im not sure I got to where you wanted me to go because I don`t agree with you that it is right to participate in a sinful act in order to minister the Lord Jesus Christ to them

            Please show me in the Bible where the Lord Jesus or His disciples participated in a sinful act in order to reach the lost? They went to the lost in their sin and called them out of it, they did not participate with them in organizing their sinful event.

            They declared the Truth, those listening either followed or rejected the truth, the truth is not intolerance, the truth sets us free. We declare the gospel(the truth) in love and God reaches those who are willing to listen to the truth.

            This woman has demonstrated Christ to them by lovingly serving and employing homosexuals including this one for years, they knew and know of her feelings toward them and about her faith.They know the gospel of Jesus and have chosen to reject it and live an openly sinful life style, their attacks on every aspect of her life are because they are attacking God in their rebellion. Matthew 10:14 is the response to such people.

          • Joe_Calgary

            Lol, Dant e no one is asking anyone to participate in sexual immorality they simply wanted a cake and some flowers. Please don’t over state the issue. Jesus was accused of drinking with the sinners was he not? I will take His lead on this one brother (or sister?). He died for all of us. He wants us to reach out in that same sacrificial love to shepherd the lost into the kingdom. Just remember we didn’t earn our way in and neither can they. I pray blessings for you and wisdom as you seek His will for you (as we all should yes?). May the Lord Bless you with every blessing!

          • Dant e

            Sorry Joe but I disagree, as did this woman. The homosexual man was asking for her to provide her services for something she profoundly disagrees with and which is a sin against her deeply held religious beliefs. That is not overstating anything, that is the truth.

            Jesus was falsely accused of many things but the reality is that He wasn`t committing sin, He went to the lost and spoke the Gospel and called them out of their sin, to repent and follow Him, it doesn`t get any clearer than that, so please do take His lead.

            You`re correct that He wants us to reach out to the lost with sacrificial love but the love must be true love which is full of truth, not one that will encourage them in a sinful act and also have you participating in it.

            No one can earn their way to salvation but that does not equate to allowing us to participate in sinful acts in order to bring the gospel. Read Ephesians 5.

            I also pray blessings, wisdom and truth for you and yours, that you may be fully equipped to carry out Gods will in bringing glory to His name.

          • Kevin Quillen

            please demonstrate where drinking is a sin. One can associate with sinners without participating in their sin.

          • Kevin Quillen

            good job brother. stand strong.

          • Kevin Quillen

            Joe; do you really think that Jesus would marry two queers? A baker is a participant in a wedding. A florist, photographer, a caterer,etc. To assist the queers by arranging for them to have a special day, is acquiescence. Jesus would love them BUT as in the case of the woman at the well, tell her to “sin no more”.

    • Kevin Quillen

      and maybe a Christian pastor would be nice and marry them too! We must not legitimize sin.

  • Christopher Clark

    Storm’s comin’.

  • yael

    It is sickening how silent Pastors are about this. America’s pastors have been so coddled and pampered they don’t do anything to cause uncomfortability.
    They put their $ above the call.
    I can’t remember when I’ve heard a sermon about standing for righteousness.Probably because Pastors know THEY don’t do it.
    We need Revival-starting right in our pulputs!This year-ironicallt-is the 500th Anniversary of Luther’s 95 Thesis.Boy, could he write a new 95 Thesis for our churches today!

    • Kevin Quillen

      actually I think we need to leave the “churches”. Live out Christ in you everywhere you are. Imagine if the money tied up in church buildings and land were used to help the poor and oppressed. How many wells could be drilled around the world in places where water is scarce or dirty. Imagine the crops growing with irrigation, imagine lives changed, and you would not even have to “preach” to them. Just be Christ workers. Man has corrupted Christianity, turned it into “religion”. used as a tool to gain and keep power and money. Harsh, I know, but how else can you explain thousands of denominations from a very simple message. Ecc 12:12-14. What else do we need?

      • Seektruth

        Amen. Very true. Thanks for being bold to mention this very truth. God does not live behind four walls or in box.
        We are the temple of God where Christ lives teaching us to be more like him.

        If and where one has worship whether in a home, a school auditorium or as I have seen a gym being rented at a highschool. No obligations, just set up , worship, have fellowship, evangelize, help one another and go help dig those wells as you mentioned with resources that the church can provide. That is what Jesus taught while He had no place to even lay His head when He was on this earth. Not a very dignified life, is it? He did these things to show us “the way” which had He talked about.

        Praise God for you Kevin Quillen. Thanks for sharing. It was inspiring and much to think about this morning. Peace and blessings to you and yours my brother in Christ.

        • Kevin Quillen

          Thank you for the kind words. God bless you and stand strong brother.

  • Seektruth

    The irony is history states pilgrims fled from their countries to America due to religious persecution because of how they practiced Christianity.

    There seems to be a sort of similar divide today. The non practicing Christian vs the practicing ones. Likely why main stream Christianity may be quiet on this one and perhaps other issues.

    Clarification: Non practicing Christian is a “Sunday” Christian, never having truly believed in the Bible or having attempted to understand it. Nevertheless feels comfortable identifying with the group.

    Being a true Christian, from day one of its existence was never a comfortable one. A lot of uncomfortable decisions were and are still made to align with God’s word and truths in the Bible. To do our best to live according to our beliefs with a true or “good” conscience.

    If this is how Christians will be treated, then we no longer have religious freedom in America to practice what we believe.

  • jenimarkhamclewell

    I am a pastor of a mainstream church and I will talk to my congregation about this, celebrating that all people are created equal and that God gave us discernment and wisdom so that we could look at the Word and interpret what it means to people of faith in the 21st century. We have always, throughout time, read God’s word and interpreted what it means for us. We have changed our minds about many things, including slavery, status of women and children, purification. The faithfulness of Christian people is not measured by their sexual orientation, but by their devotion to God.

    • Seektruth

      I am sorry to read your response Pastor. God’s word never will change. Not one jot or tittle as spoken by Jesus. His Word is eternal on earth and in heaven. Since the first AD Christians till He comes again all things Jesus taught will remain true.

      Agree, we hate the sin but not the sinner. So this does not by any means give license to be abused by the court and the plaintiff in regards to practicing our faith, if indeed we have religious freedom in this country.

      Narrow is the way and strait is the gate to life. Very few will find it.
      Broad is the way to destruction and many will go through it.
      (Paraphrasing what Jesus said)

      Matthew 23:15
      You have your congregation and teach them to be 21st century Christians. Is it because of the 501c3 or some other reason? Blessed is he that are not only hearers of the Word but doers. Does it please God for us to condone what He deemed sinful and wicked?

      Galatians 1:10
      “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

      If standing for the word of God results in persecution so be it. Jesus told us if He was persecuted so shall we. A servant is not greater than his master. And, if anyone loves the world the love of the Father is not in them.

      I do not want to be disrespectful to you Pastor but it’s easy to get caught up in this world and one can miss the forest for the trees.

      Jesus told us be in the world but not of it. When I became a born again Christian I lost a lot of my worldly friends. It has not been an easy road for the past 25 years. No regrets, I have true joy in the Lord.

      May God be with you. And if I am wrong may He forgive me but if you are not on the right path I pray He will give you discernment in these coming days.

      Peace and blessings to you.

    • Kevin Quillen

      “The faithfulness of Christian people is not measured by their sexual orientation, but by their devotion to God.” Your quote.;
      My
      question to you……so being a drunkard, liar, fornicator, thief etc.
      is ok too, after all faithfulness is not measured by drunkenness, lying,
      etc.. Homosexuality is sin. It is a choice. Just like any other sin. What say you?

  • Kevin Quillen

    “The faithfulness of Christian people is not measured by their sexual orientation, but by their devotion to God.” Your quote.;
    My question to you……so being a drunkard, liar, fornicator, thief etc. is ok too, after all faithfulness is not measured by drunkenness, lying, etc.. Homosexuality is sin. It is a choice. Just like any other sin.

  • silah

    It is too late for this now. What needs to happen first is a realization that our ‘country’ has been incorporated and the reason these cases even happen is that we no longer have the Constitution we believe we do. If your business is ‘licensed’ by the government, it is a government business and you do not have ‘private business’ rights. We have a much bigger fish to fry since the generations before us also all turned a blind eye to the corruption that now runs this country as a corporation and has turned YOU into a franchise.

  • Eric Finch

    I propose a thought experiment. Pretend that Stutzman was a Muslim florist who did not want to facilitate a Christian wedding. Just replace “Christian” with “Muslim” and “LGBT/gay” with “Christian” in the above article. For example:

    “There are, of course, the handful of expected Muslim voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime Christian customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming Christian “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.

    Instead, the court ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother who had employed Christian workers and served Christian customers for years, was required by law to participate in a Christian wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs — beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Muslims for the last 2,000 years.”

    In this hypothetical situation, do you think that the courts would have sided with a Muslim shopkeeper refusing to sell something to a Christian? I sure hope not.

  • Vicki Shehan Jones

    The First Amendment has been made a mockery of by these corrupt judges, the ACLU, and everyone who sees a difference in boycotting and punishing people with personal beliefs while ignoring others who happen to hold more politically correct views though the underlying principles are the same. Our founding fathers would certainly be appalled and outraged!!

Inspiration
Learning Persevering Prayer
Deacon Keith Fournier
More from The Stream
Connect with Us