Quantcast
  

Sunday, April 20, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 120 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples

By Ivan Moreno

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:03 p.m. HST, Dec 06, 2013


DENVER >> A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said today.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.

The commission is expected to certify the judge's order next week.

Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Phillips had argued that making cakes for gay wedding ceremonies violates his Christian beliefs.

Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake in July 2012, but when Phillips found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple of away, according to the complaint.

A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony.

Colorado has a constitutional ban against gay marriage but allows civil unions. The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 120 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(120)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
juscasting wrote:
Number one rule...."Never mess with the people who handle your food!"
on December 6,2013 | 01:18PM
sailfish1 wrote:
Exactly right!
on December 6,2013 | 02:57PM
Skyler wrote:
Heh, was thinking the same thing... cornmeal & salt cake, anyone?
on December 6,2013 | 11:31PM
8082062424 wrote:
sad that others can force you to partake of there life style
on December 6,2013 | 01:22PM
Anonymous wrote:
Unless he was going home with them, he wasn't partaking in anything except commerce and he refused to conduct commerce with them because they were gay. That is against the law.
on December 6,2013 | 04:18PM
8082062424 wrote:
so not true a wedding is the most personal and special ceremony . and the baker would have to go there and set up that being part of a ceremony. no one should be forced to be part of any ceremony they do not believe in
on December 6,2013 | 05:51PM
Kealii wrote:
exactly! people like Anonymous like to hide behind the "law" when it suits them whether it's morally right or not.
on December 6,2013 | 06:11PM
Anonymous wrote:
It's morally right to be a law-abiding citizen.
on December 6,2013 | 08:50PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
Wouldnt it depend on your morals? If your religeous beliefs keep you from performing the service/product for a gay couple, then that would go against your religeous morals.
on December 7,2013 | 12:07PM
Anonymous wrote:
If the only law was as proscribed by religion, what happens when different religions teach different precepts? Look at the ongoing strife in the Middle East to see the result of that. I don't expect you to follow my religious beliefs nor can you expect me to follow yours. That's why we are a country that was founded on freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. Our CIVIL system is based on CIVIL law.
on December 7,2013 | 12:42PM
joseph007 wrote:
to 808 : yea. I don't like asians, hawaiians and other non-whites flying on an airline or breathing.
on December 7,2013 | 08:18AM
kailua000 wrote:
Im sorry, but this is wrong. If I were gay I'd rather just not give the guy my money and go somewhere else. Next they gonna tell Hobby Lobby and Chic-fil-A they have to open on sundays because they are discriminating against non mormons? ridiculous...bet that cake isnt going to taste very good.
on December 6,2013 | 01:29PM
8082062424 wrote:
If some one did not want to service me i would just take my money some place else
on December 6,2013 | 01:38PM
MakaniKai wrote:
Exactly! Movin on. If a privately owned business refuses service (in this case) based on their religious beliefs, I’d take my kala elsewhere. But seems Charlie and David gotta make a statement. http://kdvr.com/2012/07/30/denver-cake-shop-refuses-service-to-gay-couple/
on December 6,2013 | 02:04PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
And the bakery owner WASN'T making a statement? HE is the one who said it was because they were gay which is against the law. He knew it, he said it. He could have just as easily said "I'm too busy right now, sorry" and he would be done with it, but he made it a crime and an issue on his own. He broke the law on purpose. Pay the penalty.
on December 6,2013 | 02:32PM
8082062424 wrote:
so your saying folks should have ti lie? there is no penalty . sad that you feel folks should have ti lie
on December 6,2013 | 02:51PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Who said anything about lying? Are you saying it's OK for him to break the law? Sad that you feel folks should be able to ignore laws they don't like and use religion as the excuse. He had an agenda to discriminate and now he gets to whine about being oppressed. He broke the law. His penalty is being publicly called out for discrimination AND being a lawbreaker. The free market will take care of him just fine.
on December 6,2013 | 03:56PM
8082062424 wrote:
"I'm too busy right now, sorry" . that was not the truth that would have been a lie and you know it. No one should be forced to partake of a ceremony they believe is wrong.. funny how you think it right for them to push there life style on others. and ill say again that owner should lie instead of being honest and standing up for there beliefs. folks like you will find out that more and more are being turn off by this groups behavior. nothing more then bully's
on December 6,2013 | 05:56PM
Skyler wrote:
There are many more like him and who will support his business - trust me.
on December 6,2013 | 11:35PM
Anonymous wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't tend to "trust" anyone who thinks discrimination is ok.
on December 7,2013 | 08:39AM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
YOU JUST SAID IT!! DG, you are a bigot against straight people. Cant stand bigotry, and YOU TAKE THE CAKE CUZ!!
on December 7,2013 | 12:11PM
Anonymous wrote:
I don't know if Downtowngreen is straight or gay, but you sure seem to know what's in his heart. Intolerance of discrimination doesn't make someone a bigot.
on December 7,2013 | 12:44PM
MakaniKai wrote:
Apparently so. But eh, just one little white lie - I guess it's better to fib than stand up for your beliefs.
on December 6,2013 | 04:09PM
MakaniKai wrote:
DG text from the link I provided from a Denver news station that interviewed the owner: Phillips said he isn’t a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple — just not a wedding cake. “I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, so you could say this is a religious belief,” Phillips said. “I believe the Bible teaches that (homosexuality) is not an OK thing.” The bakery is family owned and operated. Phillips said since 1993, it has turned away about a half dozen same sex weddings. And that is the store owner's choice based on his religious beliefs.
on December 6,2013 | 04:07PM
Anonymous wrote:
It's still against the law.
on December 6,2013 | 04:16PM
Kealii wrote:
Just because it's law doesn't make it right. But since it suits you by all means take advantage of it.
on December 6,2013 | 06:13PM
Anonymous wrote:
So you are advocating disobeying laws you don't think are moral? Where does that type of behavior stop if everyone disobeys laws they don't agree with? You folks are a piece of work.
on December 6,2013 | 08:51PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Why do you exceed the speed limit? It's the "law". Or are you going to tell us you never do.
on December 6,2013 | 09:57PM
Anonymous wrote:
I don't drive, so no, I don't. Using one law-breaking situation to justify another just shows how "deep" your convictions really go. Your kind of "Christian" preaching morality only when it's convenient is so hypocritical.
on December 7,2013 | 07:46AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Wrong. You're the one worshipping "civil law", and your implication you obey it 100% may or may not be true.
on December 7,2013 | 09:53AM
Anonymous wrote:
Seems you feel it is your right to try and put words in other posters' mouths. I answered your question about the speed limit. If you choose to extrapolate from that, I don't care. I don't worship civil law, I do my best to follow it while many on this site seem to advocate ignoring it when they don't believe in it You can worship your God's law if you want, but realize you should examine your own hubris and quit trying to force everyone else to do so. We are a democracy with a civil justice system. That is by the consent of the governed. Your version of theocracy is frightening, but fortunately not happening.
on December 7,2013 | 10:27AM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
Your a BIGOT against straight people>
on December 7,2013 | 12:12PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Anon, how do you come up with this stuff? First, you concede it's our right to have our beliefs, and then claim we're forcing something on you. The baker is the one being forced, not the two gays. You seem to feel that's ok. I don't. Can't you see you're the one forcing here, and using the law to do it? Even pro gay marriage proponents disagree with this position. Whether you admit it or not, many laws have been created or interpreted that are simply wrong.
on December 7,2013 | 12:22PM
Anonymous wrote:
IRT to hawaiikone: Then work to change them, which is exactly what the majority in this country is doing when it comes to marriage laws. You may advocate ignoring or breaking laws you don't agree with, but if everyone did that we would have anarchy. The baker broke the law. All of your posturing doesn't change that.
on December 7,2013 | 12:47PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Could you show me where I suggest we break the law? If you can't debate, then don't put words in my mouth.
on December 7,2013 | 02:11PM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
Where in the Bible did Jesus say to his disciples that homosexuality is not okay? Pray tell us what chapter and verse you are quoting Him as saying? Further, I am sure that you follow that "...men shall not lie with men..." verse found in Leviticus 18:22. But if you follow that literally, then you will follow the other order that state that any woman who divorces her husband shall be stoned to death. And you will also follow the order that you shall stone to death any child who is disobedient to the parents. Further, your own Bible states that you shall follow the "laws of the land". In which case, you shall follow the law that states that you must serve same-sex couples or be punished. Let's take this a little further back in history when blacks were not allowed to marry whites because it was an abomination. If a bakery were to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple, there would be outrage. Now, I don't necessarily think that businesses should be forced to serve people that practice a lifestyle that they object to due to their religious beliefs but where does that end? Further, while I do not agree with this gay couple's forcing a business to bake them a wedding cake (by the looks of some of the posts that state that they would include a surprise ingredient makes me wonder about these people) but I get it that they are trying to use the situation to fight for their rights. There is a fine line between infringing on others' religious beliefs and one's own rights.
on December 6,2013 | 09:04PM
hawaiikone wrote:
You should keep God's word out of your arguments. Stick with the popular concept that your sense of what's right has to be better than God's, so therfore the bible has no authority, or God really doesn't exist. But a forum really isn't the venue to try and explain the various intentions and complex dynamics of God's covenant with Israel. That takes acceptance, faith, prayer, study, and time.
on December 6,2013 | 09:31PM
Anonymous wrote:
They only use god when THEY feel justified. You're not supposed to.
on December 7,2013 | 07:43AM
hawaiikone wrote:
You continue to prove my point.
on December 7,2013 | 09:33AM
Anonymous wrote:
Because you say so? Keep kidding yourself. You prove your "my god is better than yours" attitude on a regular basis.
on December 7,2013 | 10:29AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Why don't you prove God doesn't exist then?
on December 7,2013 | 12:24PM
Anonymous wrote:
IRT Gonegolfin: You don't know me, and if you did, you'd realize how ridiculous your name calling is. I am intolerant of discrimination which is an act, not a trait.
on December 7,2013 | 12:48PM
kuroiwaj wrote:
Aloha Kailua000, yes, it's the Court (a judge) ruling against the second part of the 1st Amendment relating to the "Free exercise" clause. Homosexual marriage is turning the U.S. Constitution on its head. Legally bad.
on December 6,2013 | 03:13PM
Anonymous wrote:
He wasn't performing the marriage, celebrating it, or "recognizing" it. He was supposed to be conducting commerce by baking a cake. He was discriminating against someone because they were gay and that is against the law. Was he performing a marriage, celebrating it, or recognizing it when he made a cake to celebrate the marriage of two dogs?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief-lgbt-rights/wedding-cake-fido-fluffy-not-dave-charlie


on December 6,2013 | 04:26PM
kuroiwaj wrote:
Anonymous, exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court will be ruling on this specific issue in the near future. homosexual/bisexual marriage has challenged the Constitutions two Sections and one will prevail. Will the religious free exercise or the commerce section take precedence. Homosexuality is not supported by science and is an individual choice. I believe the Supreme Court is being challenged by the homosexual/bisexual community and their supporters. Homosexual marriage, as I posted is turning the U.S. Constitution on its head, and the Supreme Courts decision will destroy one side or the other. By passing homosexual legislation in the 15 States, we have now crossed the bridge.
on December 6,2013 | 04:54PM
kuroiwaj wrote:
Anonymous, in addition, I just read the courts decision. It's a State Court and if appealed will be within the State courts system, or it may be brought before the 10th Circuit because of the U.S. Constitution challenge.
on December 6,2013 | 05:11PM
Anonymous wrote:
And you'll still be singing the blues when they all follow precedent and prove you folks wrong. But I bet you still keep whining.
on December 6,2013 | 08:56PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
So Anonymous, are you GAY?
on December 7,2013 | 12:14PM
Anonymous wrote:
Why would that be any of your business? Do you really think that only gay people are intolerant of discrimination against gay and lesbian people? If that were the truth (or even close to it), none of this would be an issue. Fortunately for our society, your way of thinking has become the minority opinion.
on December 7,2013 | 12:53PM
krusha wrote:
Yeah, but what if that guy was the only cake maker in town, then you'll be out of luck and probably have to bake your own cake for your wedding.
on December 7,2013 | 12:37AM
hawaiikone wrote:
But then think of the killing you could make by opening your own...
on December 7,2013 | 06:28AM
loquaciousone wrote:
You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make the horse bake a cake....err uhh wait. how did that go again?
on December 6,2013 | 01:36PM
bekwell wrote:
I wouldn't touch that cake. I know why I'd put in it. I would also send the judge a slice.
on December 6,2013 | 01:37PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Exactly. Save one for downtown too.
on December 6,2013 | 08:33PM
Anonymous wrote:
How Christian of you folks. Hypocrites.
on December 6,2013 | 08:57PM
hawaiikone wrote:
You're right. My frustration got to me. My apologies.
on December 6,2013 | 09:36PM
pakeheat wrote:
And you are one too
on December 6,2013 | 09:39PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
Your a gay bigot against straight people.
on December 7,2013 | 12:15PM
Anonymous wrote:
I love straight and gay people in general. It's just the folks that believe it ok to discriminate against people that I dislike. By the way, practicing discrimination (though your posts suggest you are already pretty good at it and don't need much more practice) is an act, not a trait, so "bigot" is not even relevant.
on December 7,2013 | 12:57PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
Ohhh, such a cute couple. I wish they'd ask me to bake a cake for em'. Id put a couple other ingredients into the batter. Of course Im sure they are already used to eating the ingredients Im thinking of using. As for the legal ramifications: its only a matter of time before we start seeing the same type of stories and legal controversies here in the aina.
on December 6,2013 | 01:54PM
Anonymous wrote:
Good. Discriminate and break the law and someone will go after you. Stay within the law and you have no problem.
on December 6,2013 | 09:19PM
false wrote:
I thought the gay community preferred to do business with "Gay Friendly Businesses"… ( people who are happy to take their money) LOL
on December 6,2013 | 03:05PM
niimi wrote:
Use the power or Yelp! This litigation has no merit.
on December 6,2013 | 03:21PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
The case was decided against him, so in the eyes of the law, it DID have merit.
on December 6,2013 | 03:57PM
niimi wrote:
I think the judge is wrong, and I think to sue a private business this was is wrong. The proper venue to win this opinion case is in the media and on Yelp! When government starts forcing businesses to do certain things that is similar to circumstances in Russia and the Third Reich. And I am pro gay rights!
on December 6,2013 | 03:19PM
pakeheat wrote:
Thank you for you're honesty
on December 6,2013 | 09:41PM
localguy wrote:
Tough decision but the judge is 100% correct. If not done, weak minded people using religion as a crutch will "cherry pick" who they want to server or not serve, citing their religion. What group would be next, Muslims, Croats, Serbs, Mormons, where does it end? Sad to see so many people are saying in their religion it is ok to discriminate. Must be some pretty sorry religions to support this. Then again, there is no God so everyone just worshiping their own false god.
on December 6,2013 | 03:27PM
pakeheat wrote:
prove there is no God localguy, you keep hoping on this all the time
on December 6,2013 | 09:42PM
Anonymous wrote:
You keep harping on it that there is one and can not prove that either. You can believe it, but you can't prove it.
on December 7,2013 | 08:54AM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
Another GAY bigot!
on December 7,2013 | 12:17PM
Kealii wrote:
Lesson of the day: Gay power > Religious rights. Sad but true
on December 6,2013 | 04:20PM
Anonymous wrote:
Religions have no right to break the law or discriminate.
on December 6,2013 | 04:28PM
Kealii wrote:
Who said anything about breaking the law or discriminating? You did. I merely stated a fact as it stands at the moment.
on December 6,2013 | 06:17PM
Anonymous wrote:
This case and this thread is about a business openly discriminating and breaking the law. Poor persecuted Christians. "Wahhhh wahhhhh, I can't get away with discriminating! Someone is trying to enforce the law".
on December 6,2013 | 08:58PM
hawaiikone wrote:
As these initial "enforcements" of what is now legal expand to schools, workplaces, churches, and result in the loss of tax exempt statuses, you are absolutely correct. Those choosing to remain followers of Christ will indeed feel increasing persecution in their lives. Lines will be drawn, and truly tough choices will have to be made. Everything will depend on the depth and clarity of one's beliefs.
on December 6,2013 | 09:51PM
Anonymous wrote:
Civil law is the law of this country, not your particular brand of superiority-based Christian dogma. Thank goodness. Your version sounds too much like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or even more appropriately, the Taliban.
on December 7,2013 | 07:50AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Some examples?
on December 7,2013 | 09:49AM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
What is next on the GAY agenda? When will you cry-babies stop asking for these unnecessary changes?
on December 7,2013 | 12:20PM
Anonymous wrote:
The people who believe in equality (whether straight or gay) won't stop until people like you stop trying to reserve special rights for only "some" people.
on December 7,2013 | 12:58PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
A law does not make it right. There are many laws that were not thought through and this story is a perfect example of it.
on December 7,2013 | 12:18PM
Anonymous wrote:
Then work to change it. What you said could be said by somebody, somewhere, about ANY law. But for now, it's the law and you just feel the need to whine about it.
on December 7,2013 | 12:59PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Why on earth would you want to "force" a baker to sell you a cake? You should go where your business will be welcome. No matter how many laws are passed regarding gay marriage there will always be those that disagree. They are in the minority now and slowly dying off. I'm sure there are plenty of places that will be more than happy to sell a cake to anyone with money. Don't waste your energy trying to force them, there will always be people like that and nothing you do or say will change them.
on December 6,2013 | 04:23PM
Anonymous wrote:
I would tend to agree, but the bakery shop owner was breaking the law when he told them he wouldn't do business with them because they were gay. He broke the law.
on December 6,2013 | 04:27PM
pakeheat wrote:
NO, you guys got the same-sex marriage on you're side, and yet you still want go the extra mile to prove a point.
on December 6,2013 | 09:43PM
Anonymous wrote:
What's this "you guys" foolishness? Non-discrimination in commerce has been the law for EVERYONE for quite awhile. You'd be crying and stomping your feet if an atheist baker refused to sell to your type of "Christian" because it was against their beliefs. I repeat, the baker broke existing law. Change the law, or quit whining.
on December 7,2013 | 07:53AM
Mahalo wrote:
Why would you like to patrongize a business that doesn't want to serve you?? You want to make their pockets reacher?
on December 6,2013 | 04:42PM
8082062424 wrote:
the goal is to force this on everyone in one way or another plain and simple . the rest of us would have just took our money some place else it would be the owner loss they lost a costumer
on December 6,2013 | 05:47PM
Anonymous wrote:
Would you be whining if someone refused to make a Confirmation cake for a Catholic because their religion didn't recognize Catholics as true Christians? Would you be whining if a Muslim florist wouldn't send flowers for a customer to a Jewish wedding ceremony because they were "heathens" and against Allah? This is the kind of cr*p you are advocating but want everyone to buy off on it because it's still OK "for religious reasons" to discriminate against gays? Fortunately, in our state, and many others, ALL of those forms of discrimination are against the law; the fact you false Christians keep ignoring.
on December 6,2013 | 09:05PM
Anonymous wrote:
Hmm. The "conservatives" answered other posts AFTER this one was posted, but conveniently left this one alone.
on December 7,2013 | 07:55AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Not really worth the effort on a variety of levels.
on December 7,2013 | 09:48AM
Anonymous wrote:
You ask for it above, but duck it here. Typical of your hubris and hypocrisy.
on December 7,2013 | 10:31AM
hawaiikone wrote:
If you've read my posts, you'd have your answer. I feel forcing a private business to do anything other than pay their taxes, protect their employees, and provide safe, healthy products to their customers is flat wrong. If they chose to discriminate, let market forces punish them. Remember Chic-fil-a? Regarding the protection of minorities, many laws are in place already. You've read my thoughts many times regarding homosexuality. I frequently comment with very few responses. No other valid objection other than God's word can be used to oppose gay marriage. Those who deny the existence of God, or don't see the bible as His inspired word, I have no argument with, and avoid useless debate. However, when someone pulls selected sentences out of scriptures, and attempts to justify homosexuality, I will speak up. Hypocrisy? You can see it any way you choose. Just as I can see your attitude in the same light.
on December 7,2013 | 02:03PM
st1d wrote:
a religious organization has the right to refuse sacraments to whoever they want to exclude. that's freedom of religion.

businesses should accept orders and sales from all people.

money is a powerful arbiter of prejudice. when the money moves to competitors, this baker will realize the difference between religious service and customer service.


on December 6,2013 | 05:53PM
hawaiikone wrote:
In your own words, let the baker run the risk of losing patronage. After all, the governmental does nothing to help his business, and beyond safety and health concerns, should have nothing to do with running it.
on December 6,2013 | 08:47PM
st1d wrote:
"businesses should accept orders and sales from all people"

meant that as a lawful mandate.


on December 7,2013 | 08:09AM
hawaiikone wrote:
"Let the baker run the risk of losing patronage". I meant that as the right way handle any business in a free market.
on December 7,2013 | 09:37AM
Anonymous wrote:
Until then, he is breaking the law.
on December 6,2013 | 08:59PM
Anonymous wrote:
You may consider it a lie, but everyone gets to determine for themselves what "too busy" might be, but by discriminating they are being disrespectful, rude, AND breaking the law. Good thing you are not in charge. The law is the law. If you think it should be changed, you should work to change it, but it is still the law until it is changed. It's quite funny how you "conservative" or "moral" folks are all about the "rules", until they are rules you don't agree with.
on December 6,2013 | 08:55PM
hawaiikone wrote:
You have to decide for yourself if there's a higher law than the one you've referred to all evening.
on December 6,2013 | 10:01PM
Anonymous wrote:
Civil law is the law in this country. You are welcome to go by whatever "God's law" you want to in you church or home or family life, but you don't get to use it to abrogate civil law in our society. When you do, expect the consequences. Don't bother with the preaching about the after life YOU believe in until you can prove it exists.
on December 7,2013 | 07:58AM
hawaiikone wrote:
I wonder how you'll feel on your deathbed.
on December 7,2013 | 09:41AM
Anonymous wrote:
My conscience will be clean, though that would be none of your business whatsoever.
on December 7,2013 | 10:33AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Of course it's not my business, other than to share with you that I believe there is a way to eternal life. However, it is God's concern.
on December 7,2013 | 02:30PM
Anonymous wrote:
Your God. Keep your God to yourself. I don't appreciate your "sharing".
on December 7,2013 | 02:48PM
Anonymous wrote:
You can live your life in fear of an afterlife that has absolutely no proof of existence, but many choose not to. It is not your business to convince them they are wrong, though I'm sure your self-righteous moral code compels you to try.
on December 7,2013 | 10:36AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Why is it that so often we are called self righteous? Fundamental to walking with Christ is the realization that we are sinners. Fear the afterlife? Not those who sincerely try and follow Jesus. Do you really think your ridicule will make a believer give it up? Even from your cynical perspective, why not give it a shot? What have you got to lose?
on December 7,2013 | 02:39PM
Anonymous wrote:
Because I don't believe as you do and resent that you feel it is up to you to "share". Mind your own business.
on December 7,2013 | 02:49PM
Anonymous wrote:
You mean like how you preach against name calling and then turn around and do it yourself pakeheat?
on December 7,2013 | 07:47AM
Anonymous wrote:
Why? So you can continue to "debate" by twisting others' words. No thanks.
on December 7,2013 | 10:30AM
Anonymous wrote:
And you live under the illusion that we have a free market? Self-delusion is a powerful anesthesia.
on December 7,2013 | 10:32AM
Anonymous wrote:
Many with far more time and intelligence than I have tried to do just that and have not succeeded. Just as many have to tried to prove God DOESN'T exist, but proving a negative will prove just as impossible. Have your faith, but that isn't proof either.
on December 7,2013 | 12:50PM
Anonymous wrote:
This was in response to hawaiikone's ridiculous question above. It seems relevant to point out that hawaiikone can't prove God's existence either.
on December 7,2013 | 01:45PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Your the one that initially brought God into the argument, commenting that I regularly "prove my god is better than yours". I simply asked you to prove I'm wrong. Anyone that actually thinks God would allow us to prove He is or isn't misses the basic premise of God Himself.
on December 7,2013 | 02:27PM
Anonymous wrote:
Again, YOUR God. Keep him to yourself and out of our laws.
on December 7,2013 | 02:50PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Love it when it's "your" God. Simple question, do you believe in God or not? If not, we're done.
on December 7,2013 | 04:27PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Never mind. It's your right to do as you wish, as it is mine. We will simply remain in disagreement.
on December 7,2013 | 06:36PM
Anonymous wrote:
You've both been defending the actions of the baker who broke the law by discriminating.
on December 7,2013 | 02:44PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
By now you've realized the futility of trying to debate ANYthing with people who believe they have the one and only answer and feel it is their God-commanded job to make you bow to that will. Good luck with that. One day they'll mind their own business, but I for one am not going to hold my breath.
on December 7,2013 | 09:33PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Wise of you never to engage me in debate. You let it slip a while ago that you believe in God, yet are unable or unwilling to defend your assertion that homosexuality is ok with Him. You can't have it both ways, and I think you know it.
on December 8,2013 | 04:51AM
Anonymous wrote:
Twist and turn. You jump in, claim moral superiority, defend bigotry and discrimination and then act like you don't. How tiresome.
on December 7,2013 | 02:47PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News