T shirt maker has gay customers, gay employees, still sued

[Gray]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I agree. That's why I researched and actually watched the video before assuming my preconceived ideas were the truth. 

Does the video show the event as it happened?

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You want to put money on that? Did you watch the video? Bedlam Coffee has been active on Facebook defending himself. I'm comfortable it's not made up. 

Here's the purported video (extreme language warning): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ2JN2ANfTU

So . . . yeah.  

-Smac

Edited October 4, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Does the video show the event as it happened?

Apparently so.  See my previous post.

Here's a news item about it:

Quote

HOMOSEXUAL COFFEE SHOP OWNER EVICTS PEACEFUL CHRISTIANS

October 1, 2017

SEATTLE, Wa. — A homosexual coffee shop owner refused service to a group of peaceful Christian abolitionists Sunday and evicted them from his shop.

The abolitionists had been actively engaging people in the city for several days, sharing the gospel, holding signs exposing the abortion holocaust, and handing out literature to people of the streets. According to abolitionist Caytie Davis, the group entered Bedlam Coffee to rest and have a drink but did not engage anyone there.

“We had nothing on us, we weren’t distributing anything,” Davis said. “We bought coffee and went upstairs.” Within minutes of their arrival, the barista ran up the stairs and into the back room to alert the owner of their presence.

A moment later, the owner burst in, shouting, “You have to leave.”

“We were all taken aback because we had no idea what he was talking about,” Davis said. The owner then showed them a pamphlet he had found and demanded to know if it belonged to them. The pamphlet featured an image of an aborted child, as well as rainbow colored imagery along with an explanation of what the rainbow means according to scripture; a symbol of God’s longsuffering mercy toward sinners.

“None of us had dropped anything in the store,” Davis said. “But we told him yes, it was one that we had been handing out in the city, and asked where he’d found it. He told us he found it outside.”

When the abolitionists asked why they had to leave, the owner told them, “This offends me.”

Abolitionist Jonathan Sutherland pointed out that the literature had been found on public property, but the owner repeatedly cut him off, saying “Shut up! Shut up!”

“We tried to talk to him and he wanted nothing to do with it,” Davis added.

“So you’re not willing to tolerate our presence?” Sutherland asked.

“Will you tolerate my presence?” the man responded. Sutherland assured him they would. “We’re actually in your coffee shop,” he said.

...

“Well than I don’t have to f*cking tolerate this!” the man said. “Leave! All of you. Tell all your f*cking friends, don’t f*cking come here.”

The abolitionists agreed to leave, but Davis took the opportunity as they left to share the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. “Just know that Christ can save you from that lifestyle,” she said.

...

As they exited, abolitionist Jes Sutherland commented, “Seattle has proved itself to not be tolerant.”

“Don’t act so f***ing shocked b**ch,” the owner said. “Get the f*ck out.”

“They had good coffee,” Davis said. “It’s just too bad the service sucked.”

The abolitionists say the treatment they received is hypocritical, in light of recent public discrimination cases involving Christian business owners who have had to fight lawsuits over their refusal to provide services to homosexual weddings on the grounds that to do so violates their faith.

Still, they said they do not wish any harm to come to the coffee shop owners and do not want to see them unfairly treated as many Christian business owners have been.

“On the contrary,” Davis said. “My whole thought, even after, was that I hope that they continue to think about the literature, and it convicts them to the point of repentance.”

I omitted some of the more profoundly offensive stuff from the article.  

So I wonder if Seattle has an antidiscrimination ordinance, and if it will be brought to bear on Bedlam Coffee.  I won't hold my breath.

On the other hand, this story could end up having legs.  What if we end up seeing protests at places like Bedlam Coffee?  Peaceful Christians descending on it and demanding service, and then suing the gay owner based on the same sort of nondiscrimination / public accommodations laws theory that has been used against Christian bakers?

And why stop there?  What if folks start to specifically target businesses owned by gay people and devising ways to compel those businesses to provide goods/services which are personally offensive to the owners, and then suing the owners into oblivion for their "bigotry" and "hate"?

It's all just conjecture, right now anyway.  I'll close with these thoughts I posted last December:

Quote

I think a law which compels private citizens to speak in violation of their conscience is an unjust and profane law.  And I despise the misuse and exploitation of existing well-intentioned nondiscrimination and public accommodations laws as weapons for a politically and socially powerful group to punish and demean good and decent religious persons who want to live according to their beliefs.

But regardless of the legalities involved, I find the unending utilization of the if-you-do-or-say-anything-other-than-publicly-embrace-and-endorse-same-sex-marriage-then-you-are-a-bigot-like-the-racists-of-yesteryear schtick to be a stale and boring.  As I said, nobody likes a bully, and sooner a later, the bullying ceases to have its intended effect.

Or else sooner or letter the bullying tactics will be turned back onto the bullies.

We'll see, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 4, 2017 by smac97

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Not exactly. The court didn't say  they could post a sign stating their beliefs. The court said that they could post something like a disclaimer stating that "the provision of its services does not constitute an endorsement or approval of conduct protected by CADA" [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act]. 

Ok. Maybe I'm conflating the two cases. The quote you provided is exactly on point. 

[kllindley]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

Does the video show the event as it happened?

You're kidding, right?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  I am asking a question.  Do you see a difference between baking and selling a cake and decorating one?  It seems that the former behavior (baking/selling a cake) does not involve "speech," whereas the latter does (or can).

If burning a flag, or wearing a "F*** the Draft" jacket, or singing an anti-war song, or making a movie critical of a political figure, are all forms of expressive (and also constitutionally protected) speech, then so is custom decorating a cake with a "gay rainbow" and Groom-and-Groom topper.

I am not comfortable with ceding to the government power to force me to engage in speech against my will.  I don't want to be forced by the government, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to speak things I do not want to speak.  

But that is where the "Shut up and decorate my gay wedding cake, or else I'll sue you into oblivion"-style "gay rights" activism seems to be headed.  With the full-throated support of . . . some.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am in complete agreement with both you and the law as it now stands.  I think there is a world of difference between selling someone a cake and being required to decorate that cake to say something that you find offensive. And I don't think that the "gay rights" movement want to force people to decorate a cake or print a tee shirt etc against their will.  Of course there are some that will sue.  There always is.  But in general I think people clearly see the difference.  And that is where the line should be drawn IMO.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am in complete agreement with both you and the law as it now stands.  I think there is a world of difference between selling someone a cake and being required to decorate that cake to say something that you find offensive.

I am glad we have cleared that up.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

And I don't think that the "gay rights" movement want to force people to decorate a cake or print a tee shirt etc against their will.  

I guess it comes down to optics versus reality.  It seems like the "gay rights" folks are largely on board with the "Shut up and decorate my gay wedding cake, or else I'll sue you into oblivion"-style activism described above.  I wonder how widespread this sentiment actually is.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Of course there are some that will sue.  There always is.  But in general I think people clearly see the difference.  And that is where the line should be drawn IMO.

Sounds good.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

And yet from a perspective of truly trying to promote peace and good will, I don't think the current ruling is the most helpful. The court literally said that one of the baker's available avenues of recourse is to post signage stating their beliefs. So  along with a statement that they cannot discriminate let's post something stating that the business believes gay marriage is an abomination. Along with the videographer case, the idea is that business owners are told that you are being compelled to do this, but you can say other nasty things. Is this really the best way to promote tolerance and civility?

I think it is the best way to allow the business establishment to clearly state their personal religious beliefs without discriminating.  I find no problem with that personally.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

But we aren't living in a post-pro-masterpiece world. This is what is going on now. While the rulings against discrimination still stand. It is exactly this double standard where the law protects one worldview and turns a blind eye to discrimination against religious beliefs that has people so afraid.

On the contrary.  I think the christians have every right to legal recourse against the restaurant that kicked them out.  The law does not discriminate against which group is being discriminated against.  And based on what was printed in the article there is every expectation that they should win their case.  I hope they do.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

On the contrary.  I think the christians have every right to legal recourse against the restaurant that kicked them out.  The law does not discriminate against which group is being discriminated against.  And based on what was printed in the article there is every expectation that they should win their case.  I hope they do.

Glad to hear. The majority of comments so far support the owner. So public opinion is not on our side, it seems. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Not exactly. The court didn't say  they could post a sign stating their beliefs. The court said that they could post something like a disclaimer stating that "the provision of its services does not constitute an endorsement or approval of conduct protected by CADA" [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act]. 

As Professor David Bernstein points out, "The essential problem here is raised by this hypothetical: Masterpiece agrees to bake same-sex wedding cakes, but puts up a sign that says they are doing so only because the state is requiring them do so. However, says the sign, the owners are morally opposed to same-sex marriage and would prefer not to bake such cakes. Everyone on the anti-MB side I've raised this with has agreed that this would be illegal, and that they oppose this just as much as they oppose not baking the cakes at all, because of the dignitary harm to the same-sex (and overwhelmingly gay) couples. The fact that the same objection applies when the good is being provided, albeit with public reluctance, shows that the underlying issue is not the provision of commercial services, but the expression through such expression of an ideology, and the suppression of a counter-ideology. So it really is a compelled speech case, after all."

I am unaware of any laws that prevents someone from posting signs in their business stating their religious beliefs.  There was a post earlier in this thread where a judge specifically told a videographer that he could not discriminate against gay couples but could post a message on their web site stating that they were against gay marriage.  I find this perfectly acceptable.  

[Analytics]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently so.  See my previous post.

Here's a news item about it:

I omitted some of the more profoundly offensive stuff from the article.  

So I wonder if Seattle has an antidiscrimination ordinance, and if it will be brought to bear on Bedlam Coffee.  I won't hold my breath.

On the other hand, this story could end up having legs.  What if we end up seeing protests at places like Bedlam Coffee?  Peaceful Christians descending on it and demanding service, and then suing the gay owner based on the same sort of nondiscrimination / public accommodations laws theory that has been used against Christian bakers?

And why stop there?  What if folks start to specifically target businesses owned by gay people and devising ways to compel those businesses to provide goods/services which are personally offensive to the owners, and then suing the owners into oblivion for their "bigotry" and "hate"?

It's all just conjecture, right now anyway.  I'll close with these thoughts I posted last December:

Or else sooner or letter the bullying tactics will be turned back onto the bullies.

We'll see, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wouldn't the "abolitionists" need to file a complaint before the anti-discrimination ordinance could be brought to bear? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I don't think courts do very much until somebody with standing petitions the court.

The irony of this has gone full circle. If the Colorado baker would have simply said, "Look, I'll grudgingly bake you a generic wedding cake, but on the grounds of my own freedom of speech, I won't do any custom decorations that could be construed as expressing support for gay marriage, because I don't." If he would have said that, maybe the gays would have still tried to bully him in the courts, but in that case, the baker would have prevailed from the outset. But the baker wasn't looking for a peaceful, fast, reasonable outcome. He wanted to fight the culture wars. He wants to expand "speech" so that even a generic wedding cake can be construed as a specific message about homosexuality depending upon who purchases the cake, and he wants "religion" to be expanded so that baking a cake for profit is practicing his religion.

Now the baker is making his argument before the Supreme Court. If he prevails, then I would think the Seattle coffee shop would be able to say something to the effect of, "serving coffee is a religious exercise to us and represents an offering of peace and friendship. Because of my freedom of religion, I can refuse service to obnoxious anti-gay 'abolitionists' with their hideous signs 'exposing the abortion holocaust' if I want."

So yea. Of course I can see the irony and hypocrisy of the coffee shop's actions in light of the Colorado baker Supreme Court case. On the other hand, Bedlam Coffee could file an amicus curiae with the Supreme Court on the side of the baker, the LDS Church, et. al.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Apparently so.  See my previous post.

Here's a news item about it:

I omitted some of the more profoundly offensive stuff from the article.  

So I wonder if Seattle has an antidiscrimination ordinance, and if it will be brought to bear on Bedlam Coffee.  I won't hold my breath.

On the other hand, this story could end up having legs.  What if we end up seeing protests at places like Bedlam Coffee?  Peaceful Christians descending on it and demanding service, and then suing the gay owner based on the same sort of nondiscrimination / public accommodations laws theory that has been used against Christian bakers?

And why stop there?  What if folks start to specifically target businesses owned by gay people and devising ways to compel those businesses to provide goods/services which are personally offensive to the owners, and then suing the owners into oblivion for their "bigotry" and "hate"?

It's all just conjecture, right now anyway.  I'll close with these thoughts I posted last The gaDecember:

Or else sooner or letter the bullying tactics will be turned back onto the bullies.

We'll see, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

I personally think that would be perfectly acceptable.  The point is, a business  can not discriminate against an individual based on who they are.   The gay community is required to live by those same laws as they now stand.  Now if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the baker, then you are going to see this kind of behavior between all kinds of different groups.  Is that really the road we want to go down?  I think that is why I am so disappointed by the church supporting the baker.  It seems not only unChrist like behavior but also something that could ultimately backfire on the church in a very big way.  There are a lot of people that intensely dislike the church for trying to take away the civil rights of gay couples.  If the baker wins, and knowing the church supported that kind of discrimination, I would not be surprised at all to see signs going up in say the Castro area of San Francisco saying "No Mormons Served Here".  And when people ask why the signs, the owner handing out a brochure explaining all of the things the Mormon church has done to encourage discrimination against the gay community.  Now when that goes viral, what kind of discussion against the church do you think will occur.  

Just like Prop8.  The church may win the battle, but they may very well loose the war.  Seriously, have they really thought this through???

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Glad to hear. The majority of comments so far support the owner. So public opinion is not on our side, it seems. 

Well that is exactly why laws should be based on legislated laws that conform to guaranteed constitutional rights, not public opinion.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Apparently so.  See my previous post.

Here's a news item about it:

I omitted some of the more profoundly offensive stuff from the article.  

So I wonder if Seattle has an antidiscrimination ordinance, and if it will be brought to bear on Bedlam Coffee.  I won't hold my breath.

On the other hand, this story could end up having legs.  What if we end up seeing protests at places like Bedlam Coffee?  Peaceful Christians descending on it and demanding service, and then suing the gay owner based on the same sort of nondiscrimination / public accommodations laws theory that has been used against Christian bakers?

And why stop there?  What if folks start to specifically target businesses owned by gay people and devising ways to compel those businesses to provide goods/services which are personally offensive to the owners, and then suing the owners into oblivion for their "bigotry" and "hate"?

It's all just conjecture, right now anyway.  I'll close with these thoughts I posted last December:

Or else sooner or letter the bullying tactics will be turned back onto the bullies.

We'll see, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quote

“They had good coffee,” Davis said. “It’s just too bad the service sucked.”

Understatement is a form of irony, and this is one of the more amusing examples I've encountered.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

On the contrary.  I think the christians have every right to legal recourse against the restaurant that kicked them out.  The law does not discriminate against which group is being discriminated against.  And based on what was printed in the article there is every expectation that they should win their case.  I hope they do.

 

38 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Glad to hear. The majority of comments so far support the owner. So public opinion is not on our side, it seems. 

 

Symptomatic of what Elder Christofferson identified in his general conference address last October as "the shame culture."

 

Quote

 

Sometimes those who raise a warning voice are dismissed as judgmental. Paradoxically, however, those who claim truth is relative and moral standards are a matter of personal preference are often the same ones who most harshly criticize people who don’t accept the current norm of “correct thinking.” One writer referred to this as the “shame culture”:

“In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. … [In the shame culture,] moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion. …

“… Everybody is perpetually insecure in a moral system based on inclusion and exclusion. There are no permanent standards, just the shifting judgment of the crowd. It is a culture of oversensitivity, overreaction and frequent moral panics, during which everybody feels compelled to go along. … 

“The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner. The modern shame culture allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.”²⁵

 

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am unaware of any laws that prevents someone from posting signs in their business stating their religious beliefs.  There was a post earlier in this thread where a judge specifically told a videographer that he could not discriminate against gay couples but could post a message on their web site stating that they were against gay marriage.  I find this perfectly acceptable.  

I think it gets tricky. Here's what the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act says (emphasis added):

Quote

 

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation – definition

[…]

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

 

The portion in bold is the difficult part. How does one go about expressing his moral disapproval for same sex marriage without simultaneously making a potential gay customer feel that his "patronage or presence...is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable"?

 

 

[Buckeye]

On 9/25/2017 at 7:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting view from a T shirt maker who was sued because he refused to violate his conscience.

It's a real-world example of the sort of thing we've been talking about.

Notice that on one occasion, he refused to print a T shrit to say "Homosexuality is sin." He didn't feel right about it.

I'm late to the thread, but as one of the more liberal voices on the board, I wanted to say that this is the type of business that should be protected. Clearly t-shirt slogans are speech. Wedding cakes and flowers may be a different matter, but not t-shirts. If this is true, the business owner should win.

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, is this to be the new norm then?

http://theliberator.news/2017/homosexual-coffee-shop-owner-evicts-peaceful-christians/

 

If the events turn out to be true as reported above (and they certainly seem to be so, based on the video), I absolutely would support the customers in a civil suit, and not the owners. 

His behavior, foul language, and outright discrimination against the patrons because of their religious beliefs were outrageous and horrendous. 

And I'd hope they got a huge sum of money in damages, even if it resulted in him closing his business.  Individuals like that man shouldn't be in business--I'd certainly quit if I worked for him.

[Gray]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:46 AM, kllindley said:

I agree. That's why I researched and actually watched the video before assuming my preconceived ideas were the truth. 

The video didn't show up in Firefox. I was able to see it in Chrome. Apparently not made up! My bad.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Amulek writes:

Quote

The portion in bold is the difficult part. How does one go about expressing his moral disapproval for same sex marriage without simultaneously making a potential gay customer feel that his "patronage or presence...is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable"?

Probably, in this case, you couldn't - because the belief is so closely connected to that single group of people that it becomes indistinguishable (from the legal perspective) from that group.

But, I think that we already have a usable mechanism in place in many marketplaces - particularly when we deal with the question of speech for hire. Is an advertising agency considered to be expressing (as their own) the views that come through the advertising they create? No.

Could a disclaimer be appropriate? That is, could a cake maker put up a sign suggesting that the cakes that he makes should not be inferred as making a statement of approval about the events at which they are eaten? Could he deny that he is engaging in speech through his action of making a cake? I think this is one of the legitimate questions that we have to ask here. Is baking the custom cake more like painting a painting which you are then selling to someone who wants it, or more like producing an advertisement to a specific customer who has hired you to produce it - in terms of the alleged speech that comes about through the process?

Of course, if he admits that his making a cake is more like speech for hire, then perhaps his complaint loses its validity. But, we aren't really expecting him to win (not after so many losses). Part of me hopes that SCOTUS shoots down this idea that making a cake should be viewed as personal speech (because I believe that this is incoherent from a philosophical point of view). But part of me really would like to see SCOTUS begin to work on defining a more discreet separation between when religious views can justify various actions and speech, and when they cannot.

[ALarson]

On 10/4/2017 at 3:26 PM, Daniel2 said:

If the events turn out to be true as reported above (and they certainly seem to be so, based on the video), I absolutely would support the customers in a civil suit, and not the owners. 

His behavior, foul language, and outright discrimination against the patrons because of their religious beliefs were outrageous and horrendous. 

And I'd hope they got a huge sum of money in damages, even if it resulted in him closing his business.  Individuals like that man shouldn't be in business--I'd certainly quit if I worked for him.

I read some of their yelp reviews and these are where the people were from who he threw out:

http://thetenthmark.com/

(I haven't watched the video, but he should have just served them and let them leave, IMO.)

Edited October 6, 2017 by ALarson

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, ALarson said:

I read some of their yelp reviews and these are where the people were from who he threw out:

http://thetenthmark.com/

(I haven't watched the video, but he should have just served them and let them leave, IMO.)

Wow. For these guys, art means illustrations of rainbow hands that are dripping with blood from the fetuses they just murdered.

As an analogy, consider the most offensive General Conference protesters imaginable. They are on the streets of Salt Lake City wearing temple robes, mocking the ceremonies. They are trying to be as superlatively offensive to the Mormons as they possibly can be. After several of hours of protesting, they walk into the Lion's House for lunch. I wouldn't fault the folks in the Lion's House if they kicked out the protestors and told them they weren't welcome. That wouldn't be discriminating against them for their religions beliefs. That is discriminating against them for their hateful and offensive public behavior.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Wow. For these guys, art means illustrations of rainbow hands that are dripping with blood from the fetuses they just murdered.

As an analogy, consider the most offensive General Conference protesters imaginable. They are on the streets of Salt Lake City wearing temple robes, mocking the ceremonies. They are trying to be as superlatively offensive to the Mormons as they possibly can be. After several of hours of protesting, they walk into the Lion's House for lunch. I wouldn't fault the folks in the Lion's House if they kicked out the protestors and told them they weren't welcome. That wouldn't be discriminating against them for their religions beliefs. That is discriminating against them for their hateful and offensive public behavior.

This reminds me of that hilarious thread of several years ago. 

A group of people were trucked in to stage their protests during the Manti Temple Pageant. They were largely women dressed in prairie garb who walked single file around the streets of Manti representing the plural wives of Brigham Young — or maybe it was Joseph Smith. 

Anyway, at a certain point they all decided they were going to go use the porta-potties on the pageant grounds all at the same time. Strength in numbers, I suppose. 

Thing is, the cops wouldn’t allow them on the grounds. I guess the instruction had gone out that protestors were to remain in the public areas and were not to enter the pageant grounds, which was private property. 

So the publicity went out the next day about how barbaric these savage Mormons were for not allowing protesters to use the facilities attached to the thing they were protesting. 

One woman complained that she had to wet her costume because she couldn’t hold it long enough to find other accommodations.

I think it was Bluebell who commented: “If that had happened to me I would have taken that secret to my grave!”

Edited October 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Wow. For these guys, art means illustrations of rainbow hands that are dripping with blood from the fetuses they just murdered.

As an analogy, consider the most offensive General Conference protesters imaginable. They are on the streets of Salt Lake City wearing temple robes, mocking the ceremonies. They are trying to be as superlatively offensive to the Mormons as they possibly can be. After several of hours of protesting, they walk into the Lion's House for lunch. I wouldn't fault the folks in the Lion's House if they kicked out the protestors and told them they weren't welcome. That wouldn't be discriminating against them for their religions beliefs. That is discriminating against them for their hateful and offensive public behavior.

The irony is, of all the groups responsible for abortion, I don't think gays are the ones having abortions.  But hey, some christians like to blame gays for everything whether it is true or not.  Hurricanes, tidal waves, earthquakes, Biblical floods, end of the world, downfall of civilization, corruption of the youth, destruction of marriage, We are used to it.  You gotta admit, we have awesome powers.

Edited October 7, 2017 by california boy