Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[OSR stands with Israel]

In my opinion the goverment should only regulate things that can not  be regulated by the free market and this is one thing I believe that can be regulated by free market 

[Dr. Arch]

In my opinion the goverment should only regulate things that can not  be regulated by the free market and this is one thing I believe that can be regulated by free market 

Meanwhile, if it fails to do so, you have a plethora of groups in society being denied services and discriminated against, in the name of the free market, of course. It baffles me how people can support something like this just to hold onto their stringent takes on an ideological stance, unless they really don't care, which may be the case.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Oh America....continue to be the laughing stock of the western world.

How are those First Nations doing up there in the Bright White North?

[OSR stands with Israel]

In my opinion the goverment should only regulate things that can not  be regulated by the free market and this is one thing I believe that can be regulated by free market 

Meanwhile, if it fails to do so, you have a plethora of groups in society being denied services and discriminated against, in the name of the free market, of course. It baffles me how people can support something like this just to hold onto their stringent takes on an ideological stance, unless they really don't care, which may be the case.

Nope it won't fail cause denying services to any group a buisness wants doesn't apply to corporations and any buisness which is in more than one town . This means that people won't be denied services in edn

[Kingpoleon]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

And you would be okay with this dude denying services to your parents because they were interracial?

Dude, you're entitled to your own opinions and ideology, but that's just f***** up.

He is trying to use emotional appeal in federal policy. Surely you can understand how one legally supports what one morally opposes?

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

My principles do not compromise or yield, except where they depend upon the faulty and changing ideas and facts of man. Call me whatever names you like, but that won't change my mind.

[SteveRogers]

1. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker, it will likely make some sort of statement on the scope of the decision, and as the chief interpreters of the constitution, SCOTUS has the freedom to set the scope of any decision it makes. It could say that the ruling is narrow, and applies only to wedding cakes. Or it could essentially say that the ruling endorses the full "First Amendment Defense Act". Or something in between.

2. I would prefer this matter is settled through the passage of a scaled back version of the Democrats' 'Equality Act of 2017'. It would be very easy to start from that framework and add any necessary exceptions, including the wedding exception.

The court will be weighing whether or not a business owner's first amendment rights trump a state's power to pass broad anti-discrimination laws regulating private businesses. Yes, this particular case is about a baker with a religious objection to gay marriage. But if a conservative majority of the Court rules in favor of the baker, the Court will be holding that the legislature's anti-discrimination measures must give way where such regulation conflict's with a business owner's sincerely held religious beliefs. In that case, the Court may very well make clear that its holding is limited to "small businesses" and/or to individualized services like custom cake-making. Yes, the Court would articulate some sort of test for determining when a business's religious concerns trump anti-discrimination measures. But there is absolutely no scenario under which the precedent established by such a ruling could be limited to just wedding cakes (or to discrimination against gays for that matter).

I can see the legal and Constitutional arguments on both sides of this case, but if we're going to have this debate we should be clear on what a ruling in favor of one side or the other would mean.

[Badger]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

And you would be okay with this dude denying services to your parents because they were interracial?

Dude, you're entitled to your own opinions and ideology, but that's just f***** up.

He is trying to use emotional appeal in federal policy. Surely you can understand how one legally supports what one morally opposes?

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

My principles do not compromise or yield, except where they depend upon the faulty and changing ideas and facts of man. Call me whatever names you like, but that won't change my mind.

Yes, I can understand Concept in principle, however to apply that in practice to public businesses being able to deny services on the base of race is, I reiterate f****** stupid. Reread The Heart of Dixie case and realize this country and its free market economy are much much stronger due to a robust reading of the Commerce Clause.

 How in the name of bleeding Christ anyone can believe otherwise, morally, legally, philosophically, or for s**** and grins, after 50 years of the most patently indisputably successful and Society improving decision that the Congress and Supreme Court have ever put into action, at least during the century, is unreal to me.

For folks who do so saying I'm not racist I'm just very libertarian and my view of what government can restrict, your little better than a cross burning Klansman. Weather One support for doing so is based on a speech by Lester Maddox or reading Ayn Rand, the end result is still every bit as ugly, an American, and frankly anti-free Enterprise. The ability of consumers to freely choose goods and services is the basis of the free market according to Adam Smith, people not just the right of businesses to be dicks to people who don't look like them and their family. Barry Goldwater may get venerated now and again because he moderated and was willing to tell Jerry Falwell on the religious right to go to hell, and even though he probably didn't have a racist bone in his body, at least compared to any other man of his age in generation, he was still the racist best friend in government for his pushing a dead wrong policy.

[Beet]

1. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker, it will likely make some sort of statement on the scope of the decision, and as the chief interpreters of the constitution, SCOTUS has the freedom to set the scope of any decision it makes. It could say that the ruling is narrow, and applies only to wedding cakes. Or it could essentially say that the ruling endorses the full "First Amendment Defense Act". Or something in between.

2. I would prefer this matter is settled through the passage of a scaled back version of the Democrats' 'Equality Act of 2017'. It would be very easy to start from that framework and add any necessary exceptions, including the wedding exception.

The court will be weighing whether or not a business owner's first amendment rights trump a state's power to pass broad anti-discrimination laws regulating private businesses. Yes, this particular case is about a baker with a religious objection to gay marriage. But if a conservative majority of the Court rules in favor of the baker, the Court will be holding that the legislature's anti-discrimination measures must give way where such regulation conflict's with a business owner's sincerely held religious beliefs. In that case, the Court may very well make clear that its holding is limited to "small businesses" and/or to individualized services like custom cake-making. Yes, the Court would articulate some sort of test for determining when a business's religious concerns trump anti-discrimination measures. But there is absolutely no scenario under which the precedent established by such a ruling could be limited to just wedding cakes (or to discrimination against gays for that matter).

I can see the legal and Constitutional arguments on both sides of this case, but if we're going to have this debate we should be clear on what a ruling in favor of one side or the other would mean.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. That's the real danger here. All this stuff about wedding cakes is a red herring.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

And you would be okay with this dude denying services to your parents because they were interracial?

Dude, you're entitled to your own opinions and ideology, but that's just f***** up.

He is trying to use emotional appeal in federal policy. Surely you can understand how one legally supports what one morally opposes?

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

My principles do not compromise or yield, except where they depend upon the faulty and changing ideas and facts of man. Call me whatever names you like, but that won't change my mind.

Yes, I can understand Concept in principle, however to apply that in practice to public businesses being able to deny services on the base of race is, I reiterate f****** stupid. Reread The Heart of Dixie case and realize this country and its free market economy are much much stronger due to a robust reading of the Commerce Clause.

 How in the name of bleeding Christ anyone can believe otherwise, morally, legally, philosophically, or for s**** and grins, after 50 years of the most patently indisputably successful and Society improving decision that the Congress and Supreme Court have ever put into action, at least during the century, is unreal to me.

For folks who do so saying I'm not racist I'm just very libertarian and my view of what government can restrict, your little better than a cross burning Klansman. Weather One support for doing so is based on a speech by Lester Maddox or reading Ayn Rand, the end result is still every bit as ugly, an American, and frankly anti-free Enterprise. The ability of consumers to freely choose goods and services is the basis of the free market according to Adam Smith, people not just the right of businesses to be dicks to people who don't look like them and their family. Barry Goldwater may get venerated now and again because he moderated and was willing to tell Jerry Falwell on the religious right to go to hell, and even though he probably didn't have a racist bone in his body, at least compared to any other man of his age in generation, he was still the racist best friend in government for his pushing a dead wrong policy.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships aren't public buisnesses

[Badger]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

And you would be okay with this dude denying services to your parents because they were interracial?

Dude, you're entitled to your own opinions and ideology, but that's just f***** up.

He is trying to use emotional appeal in federal policy. Surely you can understand how one legally supports what one morally opposes?

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

My principles do not compromise or yield, except where they depend upon the faulty and changing ideas and facts of man. Call me whatever names you like, but that won't change my mind.

Yes, I can understand Concept in principle, however to apply that in practice to public businesses being able to deny services on the base of race is, I reiterate f****** stupid. Reread The Heart of Dixie case and realize this country and its free market economy are much much stronger due to a robust reading of the Commerce Clause.

 How in the name of bleeding Christ anyone can believe otherwise, morally, legally, philosophically, or for s**** and grins, after 50 years of the most patently indisputably successful and Society improving decision that the Congress and Supreme Court have ever put into action, at least during the century, is unreal to me.

For folks who do so saying I'm not racist I'm just very libertarian and my view of what government can restrict, your little better than a cross burning Klansman. Weather One support for doing so is based on a speech by Lester Maddox or reading Ayn Rand, the end result is still every bit as ugly, an American, and frankly anti-free Enterprise. The ability of consumers to freely choose goods and services is the basis of the free market according to Adam Smith, people not just the right of businesses to be dicks to people who don't look like them and their family. Barry Goldwater may get venerated now and again because he moderated and was willing to tell Jerry Falwell on the religious right to go to hell, and even though he probably didn't have a racist bone in his body, at least compared to any other man of his age in generation, he was still the racist best friend in government for his pushing a dead wrong policy.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships aren't public buisnesses

You don't have to be a publicly traded company, which I believe is the nonsense oh definition you're using, to be engaged any public stream of Commerce. You are two plus two equals five factually incorrect.

[America Needs R'hllor]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

And you would be okay with this dude denying services to your parents because they were interracial?

Dude, you're entitled to your own opinions and ideology, but that's just f***** up.

He is trying to use emotional appeal in federal policy. Surely you can understand how one legally supports what one morally opposes?

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

My principles do not compromise or yield, except where they depend upon the faulty and changing ideas and facts of man. Call me whatever names you like, but that won't change my mind.

Yes, I can understand Concept in principle, however to apply that in practice to public businesses being able to deny services on the base of race is, I reiterate f****** stupid. Reread The Heart of Dixie case and realize this country and its free market economy are much much stronger due to a robust reading of the Commerce Clause.

 How in the name of bleeding Christ anyone can believe otherwise, morally, legally, philosophically, or for s**** and grins, after 50 years of the most patently indisputably successful and Society improving decision that the Congress and Supreme Court have ever put into action, at least during the century, is unreal to me.

For folks who do so saying I'm not racist I'm just very libertarian and my view of what government can restrict, your little better than a cross burning Klansman. Weather One support for doing so is based on a speech by Lester Maddox or reading Ayn Rand, the end result is still every bit as ugly, an American, and frankly anti-free Enterprise. The ability of consumers to freely choose goods and services is the basis of the free market according to Adam Smith, people not just the right of businesses to be dicks to people who don't look like them and their family. Barry Goldwater may get venerated now and again because he moderated and was willing to tell Jerry Falwell on the religious right to go to hell, and even though he probably didn't have a racist bone in his body, at least compared to any other man of his age in generation, he was still the racist best friend in government for his pushing a dead wrong policy.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships aren't public buisnesses

You don't have to be a publicly traded company, which I believe is the nonsense oh definition you're using, to be engaged any public stream of Commerce. You are two plus two equals five factually incorrect.

There is a huge difference in this and the pre 1960s south as unlike the pre 1960s south , as the large corporations in those areas  wontt allowed to deny service to groups of people and corporations are where most people get their goods from which means if mom and pop try to act like dicks to different group of people they will lose thier difference.


In my opinion is that if the free market is able to regulate businesses in certain areas the government shouldnt get involved.
 

In this case since its really only sole proprietorship or partnerships who would be able to act in this way legally, they will immediately start losing customers if they started acting like dicks to customers who arent part of the same race or sex as them, so they will lose their business  .



I'm not defending those businesses because what they do is terrible . What I am saying is the free market can take care of this issue better then the government can

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Since liberals seem to think that whenever you say the word sex, you are also talking about sexual orientation or gender identity, I decided to clarify that I was not referring to those categories in that specific sentence. The only case where I think I would oppose 'LGBT Equality' outside of weddings is in the area of Bathroom/Locker Room Access for Transgender Individuals who have not undergone reassignment surgery (I support having a requirement that a Unisex facility is provided for such individuals, but oppose allowing them into their new sex's bathroom or locker room pre-surgery for reasons of safety and privacy.), but to be perfectly honest, I have not read the Equality Act of 2017 in full so it is possible there are other provisions I cannot support.

[politics_king]

Smh... Just get with the times. One, the couple should've went to another business that doesn't want to serve them and file the complaint. And the baker honestly is fed with so much b.s. that they felt it was the right thing to do. Promote the message of Equality, that's what makes our country great.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Smh... Just get with the times. One, the couple should've went to another business that doesn't want to serve them and file the complaint. And the baker honestly is fed with so much b.s. that they felt it was the right thing to do. Promote the message of Equality, that's what makes our country great.

you know a democrat running for Sec of State in Oregon lost last year for exactly this issue: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/oregon-bakery-official-lost-trnd/index.html


this proves that the best way to deal with issues like this is in the free market and not the government.

[America Needs R'hllor]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Since liberals seem to think that whenever you say the word sex, you are also talking about sexual orientation or gender identity, I decided to clarify that I was not referring to those categories in that specific sentence. The only case where I think I would oppose 'LGBT Equality' outside of weddings is in the area of Bathroom/Locker Room Access for Transgender Individuals who have not undergone reassignment surgery (I support having a requirement that a Unisex facility is provided for such individuals, but oppose allowing them into their new sex's bathroom or locker room pre-surgery for reasons of safety and privacy.), but to be perfectly honest, I have not read the Equality Act of 2017 in full so it is possible there are other provisions I cannot support.

Yes, but in the end, all you're saying is that lgbtq Equality is not equal to racial equality. While a baker should be able to deny a gay couple service, he shouldn't be able to deny it to a mixed couple. That signaling out of lgbtq people is, in fact, discriminatory.

And no, I believe most liberals can distinguish between sex, sexual orientation and gender identity because, you know, the acceptance of different sexual orientations and gender identities, separate from sex, grew mainstream thanks to socially liberal politics.

[SteveRogers]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Since liberals seem to think that whenever you say the word sex, you are also talking about sexual orientation or gender identity, I decided to clarify that I was not referring to those categories in that specific sentence. The only case where I think I would oppose 'LGBT Equality' outside of weddings is in the area of Bathroom/Locker Room Access for Transgender Individuals who have not undergone reassignment surgery (I support having a requirement that a Unisex facility is provided for such individuals, but oppose allowing them into their new sex's bathroom or locker room pre-surgery for reasons of safety and privacy.), but to be perfectly honest, I have not read the Equality Act of 2017 in full so it is possible there are other provisions I cannot support.

Again, the Court's ruling in this case (one way or the other) won't be limited to just discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Kamala]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

[MasterJedi]

In my opinion the goverment should only regulate things that can not  be regulated by the free market and this is one thing I believe that can be regulated by free market 

Meanwhile, if it fails to do so, you have a plethora of groups in society being denied services and discriminated against, in the name of the free market, of course. It baffles me how people can support something like this just to hold onto their stringent takes on an ideological stance, unless they really don't care, which may be the case.

Nope it won't fail cause denying services to any group a buisness wants doesn't apply to corporations and any buisness which is in more than one town . This means that people won't be denied services in edn

The "free market" doesn't exist. What you really mean is humans, who have beliefs and prejudices that will take precedence over money. What if all the business decided that white people have more money so we just charge them twice as much for it? Bet you'd freak on that as "racism".

[Santander]

It's nice to see Trump stand up for an issue I agree with him on. While we need additional federal legislation for LGBT employment and housing protection, when it comes to a service directly related to a wedding, religious freedom must be protected. Kasich said in the primary debates (paraphrasing): "If someone doesn't want to photograph your wedding, find another photographer. Don't go to Court." The same principle applies to wedding cakes.

No, what he actually said was, "if you're in the business of conducting commerce, conduct commerce," and to say a prayer for them on their way out if you don't agree with their lifestyle.

[Devout Centrist]

It's nice to see Trump stand up for an issue I agree with him on.

Not a good sign, folks

[BoAtlantis]

As someone whose parents are devout Christians and bakery owners, we try to treat all customers with the utmost respect, and would never refuse service based on a couple's profile.

My parents and I recognize that refusing service would do nothing but make a political statement, show disregard for humanity, and display moral superiority by casting the first stone.

One can oppose same sex marriage by refusing to attend their wedding, not by flaunting the almighty attitude of "I refuse to make a cake, which I've been making for 30 years in the name of Christ"

Maybe we're just weird Christians.

[Santander]

As someone whose parents are devout Christians and bakery owners, we try to treat all customers with the utmost respect, and would never refuse service based on a couple's profile.

My parents and I recognize that refusing service would do nothing but make a political statement, show disregard for humanity, and display moral superiority by casting the first stone.

One can oppose same sex marriage by refusing to attend their wedding, not by flaunting the almighty attitude of "I refuse to make a cake, which I've been making for 30 years in the name of Christ"

Maybe we're just weird Christians.

No, you sound like good Christians, not weird Christians.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

[ProudModerate2]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.