Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
From here I would like to point to an excellent article written in the Wake Forest Law Review, which I highly recommend. A few snips follow:
The law sends messages. The antidiscrimination law sends a message that the racial caste system, or a similar one based on sexual orientation, is wrong and illegal. Applying the law to particular acts of discrimination emphasizes the message. The message sent by allowing religious exemptions is that discrimination is wrong and illegal except when it is right and legal. It is illegal and wrong unless your deeply held religious beliefs support the caste system and, by one version, unless the victim of discrimination can find a convenient alternative. The right to discriminate can convey a message (at least in certain circumstances) that it is right to do so.General application is important. What would the result have been in the segregated South if exemptions based on religious convictions had been in place? The result would have been even worse if all moral objectors to integration were also included.A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays | Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context | Wake Forest Law ReviewConclusion
The best way to think about the claim that gay marriage requires expanded exemptions from existing laws for religious discriminators is in the larger context of both race and gender discrimination and in the larger context of discrimination against gays outside of gay marriageas well as in the case of discrimination against people in same-sex marriages. The racial analogy may help some see why the harms of discrimination against gays are substantial and why broad exemptions are problematic. If so, this Essay will have been a modest success.
^ Just some thought food for munching.
To readers on this forum, and they count many, even those that disagree with him, World Watcher is one of the most polite, patient, thoughtful and thorough debaters here.Holy crap.
Anyone follow the spectacular fail of the Windbag here?
Read back for some fun (for what he claimed and what I cited):
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795335-post906.html
And then he links to the NM Photographer in that OP...which was what I cited!
Yikes, and as I suspected, yes, again, you were blown out of the water on that thread.
WorldWatcher did his normal ju jitsu and left you in the dust:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7745404-post134.html
World Watcher couldn't argue his way out of a kindergarten class full of deaf mutes.
Holy crap.
Anyone follow the spectacular fail of the Windbag here?
Read back for some fun (for what he claimed and what I cited):
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795335-post906.html
And then he links to the NM Photographer in that OP...which was what I cited!
Yikes, and as I suspected, yes, again, you were blown out of the water on that thread.
WorldWatcher did his normal ju jitsu and left you in the dust:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7745404-post134.html
World Watcher couldn't argue his way out of a kindergarten class full of deaf mutes.
1) The services might not be the same, however, the law is flawed when it comes to an allowance of personal convictions. Lets imagine that the couple in that bakery had been homosexual (male male, female female--whichever), and lets also say that instead of a Christian based theme, they had gay pride regalia smattered all over their website and on the walls of their store. Now, a Christian couple walks in asking for a cake for a wedding, they then proceed to inform the Christian couple that they only serve homosexuals. Would the law still be allowing for their (the homosexuals) convictions? Apparently yes, since in this current political climate they are on the opposite side of the coin. And like it or not, there is an obvious indifference towards the religious in this country being exercised by our government. Given recent Supreme Court rulings, you cannot expect that law to be applied fairly. I favor its repeal for that reason.
No it would not.
1) If the homosexual business owner denied a Christian couple a wedding cake, they also would be in violation of the law and the Christians could file a complaint with the State EEOC.
Please cite the legal precedence that applies in Oregon or New Mexico or the Federal Legal precedence that requires shop owners to service political organizations.
As mentioned above, if the shop owners tells the KKK that they won't sell them something because they are white, then the shop owner is in violation of the law - however the shop owner is wholly within the law to disallow the sales based on a political organization. (As previously mentioned the California Supreme Court has expanded that states Unhur Act to encompass all forms of discrimination, but that is not a standard applicable to other states or nationally.)
3) Even though the NM ruling set precedent, one critical matter is ignored: Constitutional freedom. According to the oft cited First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person has the right to freely express himself, as well as freely practice whatever faith he believes in without any interference from the Governmental body. Given what is said in the Supremacy Clause, such rights trump any state law which may conflict with the person's First Amendment rights When I hear the term "freely" I assume that there are no limits, no strings attached. Given that, I assume that when I hear "free exercise of religion" I assume it to mean that a man of faith can freely reject things that fly in the face of his religious teachings, which should also then apply to this bakery's right to reject making products for or selling products to people who espouse ideals that violate their convictions based on such religious teachings. The biggest problem I have, is that a faith based couple has no ability to stand up for their convictions without being torn down or brought to their knees by their own government, who claims to espouse upholding the people's constitutional rights.
#1 - They are free to exercise their religion. Under the laws in Oregon, they are not free to conduct discriminatory business practices when the run a business classified as a Public Accommodation. If their religion bars them from performing certain actions because of their faith, they are free not to offer those services. However when they do offer those services they must be prepared to provide them equally to all members of the Public for which there are legal protections.
#2 - They are also free, under the law as explained by the NM Supreme Court, to exercise free speech and plaster their business with their religious viewpoint. However under the law they are not allowed to have their business function in a discriminatory manner.
Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed because they infringe on the property rights of the private business owner. There does not need to be "special privileges" based on religion not available to other private businesses.
>>>>
So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.
Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.
And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.
To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.
I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.
I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If that race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.
Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.
>>>>
There goes Foxy bandying about the term "evil" for the 10th + time
To readers on this forum, and they count many, even those that disagree with him, World Watcher is one of the most polite, patient, thoughtful and thorough debaters here.
Hey. Come on now. That was a low blow, and for no good reason. I don't agree with WW on many things, but I do recognize that he can put forth a solid argument.
If a business entity decided to refuse service to people of sexual orientation, color of ones skin or other reasons, that would allow me, as a consumer to know their bias and refuse to patronize the establishment.
The government is a different animal and should never be allowed to discriminate.
No it would not.
1) If the homosexual business owner denied a Christian couple a wedding cake, they also would be in violation of the law and the Christians could file a complaint with the State EEOC.
Please cite the legal precedence that applies in Oregon or New Mexico or the Federal Legal precedence that requires shop owners to service political organizations.
As mentioned above, if the shop owners tells the KKK that they won't sell them something because they are white, then the shop owner is in violation of the law - however the shop owner is wholly within the law to disallow the sales based on a political organization. (As previously mentioned the California Supreme Court has expanded that states Unhur Act to encompass all forms of discrimination, but that is not a standard applicable to other states or nationally.)
#1 - They are free to exercise their religion. Under the laws in Oregon, they are not free to conduct discriminatory business practices when the run a business classified as a Public Accommodation. If their religion bars them from performing certain actions because of their faith, they are free not to offer those services. However when they do offer those services they must be prepared to provide them equally to all members of the Public for which there are legal protections.
#2 - They are also free, under the law as explained by the NM Supreme Court, to exercise free speech and plaster their business with their religious viewpoint. However under the law they are not allowed to have their business function in a discriminatory manner.
Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed because they infringe on the property rights of the private business owner. There does not need to be "special privileges" based on religion not available to other private businesses.
>>>>
So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.
Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.
To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:
1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?
2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?
3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?
4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?
Etc.
In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?
[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]
>>>>
To readers on this forum, and they count many, even those that disagree with him, World Watcher is one of the most polite, patient, thoughtful and thorough debaters here.Holy crap.
Anyone follow the spectacular fail of the Windbag here?
Read back for some fun (for what he claimed and what I cited):
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795335-post906.html
And then he links to the NM Photographer in that OP...which was what I cited!
Yikes, and as I suspected, yes, again, you were blown out of the water on that thread.
WorldWatcher did his normal ju jitsu and left you in the dust:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7745404-post134.html
World Watcher couldn't argue his way out of a kindergarten class full of deaf mutes.
That you disparage with such infantile retorts as this only reinforces, for all to see, the caricature you have become, highlights the impotence of your argument, and shows how you treat people who have given you the utmost respect.
Which I, for one, cannot muster, nor do I think many here can.
Holy crap.
Anyone follow the spectacular fail of the Windbag here?
Read back for some fun (for what he claimed and what I cited):
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795335-post906.html
And then he links to the NM Photographer in that OP...which was what I cited!
Yikes, and as I suspected, yes, again, you were blown out of the water on that thread.
WorldWatcher did his normal ju jitsu and left you in the dust:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7745404-post134.html
World Watcher couldn't argue his way out of a kindergarten class full of deaf mutes.
Hey. Come on now. That was a low blow, and for no good reason. I don't agree with WW on many things, but I do recognize that he can put forth a solid argument.
To readers on this forum, and they count many, even those that disagree with him, World Watcher is one of the most polite, patient, thoughtful and thorough debaters here.Hey. Come on now. That was a low blow, and for no good reason. I don't agree with WW on many things, but I do recognize that he can put forth a solid argument.
Thank you both very much.
I learned as I worked toward becoming a Master Training Specialist in the Navy that the best understanding of how something works is when you attempt to explain it to others. Same with debate, sometimes you teach, sometime you learn, and sometimes you learn to ignore assholes and just slide over their posts. When you learn to just consider the source and let things slide by, then life is much less stressful.
>>>>
So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.
Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.
To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:
1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?
2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?
3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?
4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?
Etc.
In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?
[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]
>>>>
A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person. A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.
A plumber should provide service at his place of business to a Jewish person as he would to any other person. A plumber should not have to go anywhere else he does not wish to go for any reason.
A cab driver who refuses to take dogs into his cab is on perfectly sound ground regardless of why he refuses to take dogs so long as he treats everybody the same. If he is allergic or knows his customers are allergic, he shouldn't have to provide a service that goes against his personal interests. He should accept fares from everybody, however, regardless of their color or creed or whatever; however, he should NOT be required to take ANYBODY into a neighborhood he knows to be dangerous.
The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior. But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.
You see how that works? Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business. That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner. But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business. That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.
Where in the Bible does it say you can mistreat people, call them names, just because they don't ascribe to your religious beliefs? Didn't Jesus tell you to love your enemy? To love your neighbor as yourself? Treating people equally does not violate any religious teachings that I know of, especially not Christianity.There's a big big difference between saying you won't do something because someone is gay, and not doing it because it violates the religious teachings of your faith. That's one critical thing all of you pro gay folks missed.
Gays are not trying to force you to be gay, just to agree to be fair.If I openly discriminated against gays, I would not be a good Christian. I don't stop them from enjoying the rights I have, the things I have, the freedom that I have. They are Americans just as I am. But I will not in a quintillion years violate the teachings of my faith just to sate the whims of a homosexual. I can be friendly and tolerant of them, but I will not capitulate to them.
You seem to pick and choose which teachings of the faith you want to obey. Telling other posters to "fuck off" is certainly not something that Jesus teaches, yet you don't seem to have a problem doing it.But then again, you don't mind placing unfair obligations on people, do you?
The thing is this, when people invoke God or anything else to try and justify their position on what they believe in life, then it is up to the people who are in the direct line of fire of this invoking, to investigate their claims in which they make thus using God or anything else in ways that may not be accurate at all when they are doing so in this way, so it is always good to do ones homework on these people and their speaking's. The Bible in many cases may not even represent them as they had spoken or quoted it that way, so it is always best to check it out for one self in life.No it would not.
1) If the homosexual business owner denied a Christian couple a wedding cake, they also would be in violation of the law and the Christians could file a complaint with the State EEOC.
Please cite the legal precedence that applies in Oregon or New Mexico or the Federal Legal precedence that requires shop owners to service political organizations.
As mentioned above, if the shop owners tells the KKK that they won't sell them something because they are white, then the shop owner is in violation of the law - however the shop owner is wholly within the law to disallow the sales based on a political organization. (As previously mentioned the California Supreme Court has expanded that states Unhur Act to encompass all forms of discrimination, but that is not a standard applicable to other states or nationally.)
#1 - They are free to exercise their religion. Under the laws in Oregon, they are not free to conduct discriminatory business practices when the run a business classified as a Public Accommodation. If their religion bars them from performing certain actions because of their faith, they are free not to offer those services. However when they do offer those services they must be prepared to provide them equally to all members of the Public for which there are legal protections.
#2 - They are also free, under the law as explained by the NM Supreme Court, to exercise free speech and plaster their business with their religious viewpoint. However under the law they are not allowed to have their business function in a discriminatory manner.
Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed because they infringe on the property rights of the private business owner. There does not need to be "special privileges" based on religion not available to other private businesses.
>>>>
So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.
Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.
To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:
1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?
2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?
3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?
4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?
Etc.
In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?
[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]
>>>>
The thing is this, when people invoke God or anything else to try and justify their position on what they believe in life, then it is up to the people who are in the direct line of fire of this invoking, to investigate their claims in which they make thus using God or anything else in ways that may not be accurate at all when they are doing so in this way, so it is always good to do ones homework on these people and their speaking's. The Bible in many cases may not even represent them as they had spoken or quoted it that way, so it is always best to check it out for one self in life.So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.
Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.
To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:
1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?
2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?
3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?
4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?
Etc.
In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?
[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]
>>>>
What I notice is that people don't want to investigate what the belief is or what the bibles says accurately about things, and this in order to counter lies or reveal perpetrators if that is what they might find in those whom may be miss-using the Lords name or invoking it for their cause or reasons for their cause in certain ways, and I think that they don't because they want to use the ignorant persons words against the whole group somehow. Home work must be done against those for whom might make a ridiculous claim in which the Bible doesn't even back up, and then on top of that make it wrongfully without challenge of. They don't do their homework because they want to use it to tear down the entire belief system or group by way of even one individual doing wrong in the groups name, and for whom had then acted out vocally or in ways that could potentially give ammunition to those whom have an agenda against an entire group in which is their hopes to then try and wipe out a specific belief system in which they hate by putting certain people out in the spotlight, especially if the belief system they hate speaks against the very created cultures and/or actions in which should be spoken against righteously or by righteous people, if those cultures, trends or actions are harmful or hurtful to a belief system that does quite well without having to deal with problems that would therefore put the belief system in jeopardy or grave danger, and in which it could potentially do to it by allowing any and everyone into it (even ones enemy without knowledge of) if so be the case where this happens or has happened in the past.
Always remember the Trojan Horse story, and it will help always to understand the ways in which our enemies seek to infiltrate and destroy us and our belief systems.
People miss-representing belief systems or cultures, and good things by high jacking them for their own twisted thinking coupled with their actions committed wrongfully upon, are coming in droves anymore in this nation, and so this places all good at risk, especially when we see also groups adapting or attaching themselves to other legitimate causes, and all in order to make their group or cause even more powerful when this happens. This then gives them more accessibility to areas in which they were never allowed to have access to before, other than by order of an ignorant out of touch government, and this because of their anti-beliefs in a system in which they desired to enter into, yet only wanted the access to it because their attempt is to destroy it once they are granted access to it. All systems should be on high alert in this nation and around the world now, because evil and bad are on the move as each line that had been established over the years are subject to now fall all because of.
"This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."
There ya go. A pastor...singing Kick 'em in the Nuts For Jesus."This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."
Kevin Swanson, Right-Wing Pastor: Gay Couples Should Be Told To Die On Their Wedding Day
Gee, what a classy guy.
"This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."
Kevin Swanson, Right-Wing Pastor: Gay Couples Should Be Told To Die On Their Wedding Day
Gee, what a classy guy.
