I know they think about religion. They write to me all the time and want to talk about, gripe about it, rant about it, or clarify it. Many of them do think about religion. Some have been and continue to be hurt by it, some have questions, some are very angry, and some are struggling.

Do you think whether gays or lesbians think about religion?

> I find it hard to believe there are no specific complaints that have come up about the christians behavior here.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. If you just assume Christians are at fault, maybe that's prejudice on your part. But the burden of proof is on you to find out whether the Christians were at fault or not. If you claim that, "Oh, they must have been," you have to substantiate that.

> And if they're promoting this viewpoint publicly, or are advocating it in a setting where there are people who don't hold that view, then they are probably are discriminating.

Well, we can't assume and then assume their guilty on the basis of our assumptions. If you think they're promoting this view publicly, you should have some evidence before you hold this position. That's only responsible.

> And persuade them that they are sinners because they are gay, is discrimination

Are they doing this? You can't just assume it. You should have evidence before you hold this position.

And, by the way, it's only discrimination if you actually discriminate. To hold a belief is not discrimination if there is no front where that surfaces or has effect. For instance, I've never been an employer, I don't run a store or run a businesses, and so my view (whatever it may be) is never on the playing field. I'm never in that situation, so it's never discrimination. Just for analogy's sake, suppose I thought (which I don't) that (oh I'll make something up) that if I were a business owner in Indonesia I would never hire an American to work. Well, I've never been in Indonesia, and I don't own a business there, so how is this discrimination if I never actually discriminate against someone? The belief doesn't make it discrimination.

Suppose I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Suppose I run a college group on a campus. Suppose we never teach that (we never put it on the curriculum), it never comes up, and everyone is welcome to attend my group, and everyone is welcomed with a hug. Am I discriminating? I say I'm not.

> I'm not sure of the rules, but if the rules are that you can't exclude anyone in officially sanctioned clubs or whatever, then this requirement violates that.

Do you mean to say that a rabid Republic should be allowed to be the leader of the campus Democrats? A KKK activist should be allowed to run the local chapter of the NAACP? Are you really saying that a Christian group should be required to possibly allow an atheist as its chapter leader? In my humble opinion, that's crazy.

>> Well, then do the research before you judge.
> I'm not really interested enough to, but it's your claim, you should support it.

I did support it. The group didn't do anything. I have done the research.

But it's off-putting that you aren't interested enough to find the truth, but you are more than ready to judge the Christians as at fault. That's very troubling to me.

> The reason the photographer is a bad analogy, is because they don't have to serve everyone that contacts them in the first place. How can you determine why they didn't want the business? This is why this analogy is difficult.

You're being evasive. You know what the point is here.

> They do have the right to say no.

But you're saying a cake baker does [i]not[/i] have the right to say the same "no" based on the same conscientious objective. That's a double standard.

> But the mere fact that you open a store for walk in business means you can't turn someone away because of those values.

OK, suppose a black family owns a cake store, and the KKK comes in and wants a cake decorated with a black person hanging by a noose from a tree and it says "Kill all n*****rs." It's a store that accepts walk in business. Should the owner be required to decorate and sell this cake?

> Wasn't [the cross] used to murder christ?

Of course it was. In those days the cross was not a hate symbol, but the symbol of state executions. But the FFRF says the cross is a hate symbol. That's just hate rhetoric from the FFRF.

> Doesn't make it right.

As I've said, someone is going to end up being discriminated against. There's no way around it when we have conflicting values. Somewhere the decision has to be made. Obviously you think it's the Christians that should be discriminated against, and they should keep quiet about it. That's doesn't make it right, either.

> Those that want to push their beliefs onto other where those beliefs infringe on their rights.

The LGBTQ+ community is pushing their beliefs onto Christians far more than the other way around. The court case law and current events show that to be true, infringing on the religious rights of Christians' free expression. What makes this right in your mind, since you believe that pushing your beliefs on another group and infringing on their rights is wrong? Christians just want to be able to live according to the principles of their religion, but the gay activists are doing many things to discriminate on Christians on many fronts. According to your statement, this is wrong and it is discriminatory.

You seem so disturbed about discrimination against gays, but not the slightest bit about discrimination against Christians. To me, that just glares with hypocrisy and is a contradictory double standard.

> Right. The truth is, they don't discriminate against others. They have a rule that says the head of their local chapters should be believers in Christ.

I find it hard to believe there are no specific complaints that have come up about the christians behavior here.

> I know that they also teach the Bible, which means that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

And if they're promoting this viewpoint publicly, or are advocating it in a setting where there are people who don't hold that view, then they are probably are discriminating.

> trying to persuade them that God exists, that He loves them, and how they can be saved from sin. No discrimination takes place.

And persuade them that they are sinners because they are gay, is discrimination. It's also rude. How do you know this god actually feels this way? Because someone wrote it into a book when it was much more common to discriminate?

>>Such as? I don't get it. What were they doing wrong?
> They were kicked off of U Iowa for requiring their leaders to be Christian

I'm not sure of the rules, but if the rules are that you can't exclude anyone in officially sanctioned clubs or whatever, then this requirement violates that.

> Well, then do the research before you judge.

I'm not really interested enough to, but it's your claim, you should support it.

> The point isn't house calls, but if you have a business that serves the public, are you ever allowed to draw lines based on conscience and conscientious objection?

The reason the photographer is a bad analogy, is because they don't have to serve everyone that contacts them in the first place. How can you determine why they didn't want the business? This is why this analogy is difficult.

> How would anybody feel if someone from Westboro asked a gay photographer to photograph their wedding

Same objection. There is no requirement that they do that. It would be different if the photographer had a studio open to the public to come in and have pictures taken. In that case, it would be wrong for the photographer to turn down service on a walk in because they're from a shitty church.

> That photographer, in my hypothetical situation, should have a right to say no, and the customer should go elsewhere.

They do have the right to say no. This isn't a walk in, it's a house call.

> You don't seem to be grasping the idea that sometimes values come into conflict.

I absolutely do understand that values come in conflict. But the mere fact that you open a store for walk in business means you can't turn someone away because of those values. If you don't want to deal with all of the public, then opening a bakery isn't the right thing for you to do.

> The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) considers the cross to be hate symbol.

Wasn't it used to murder christ?

> The courts, including the Supreme Court of the US, disagree with you.

Doesn't make it right.

> My question is: Who is really the hater here? Who is really discriminating? Who is bigoted?

Those that want to push their beliefs onto other where those beliefs infringe on their rights. Wanting to be treated equally with other people is not discrimination.

> I asked you what principals were the contention and you respond by providing a link to list of all things that they believe, but not specifically the parts that infringe or discriminate against others?

Right. The truth is, they don't discriminate against others. They have a rule that says the head of their local chapters should be believers in Christ. I know that they also teach the Bible, which means that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But that doesn't discriminate against anyone. All these groups do is live out their faith in the community, they do helpful things, and they evangelize people, trying to persuade them that God exists, that He loves them, and how they can be saved from sin. No discrimination takes place.

> Is U Iowa a strictly christian organization? No? Then why do you think it's wrong to require leaders to be christian?

They are not requiring the leaders of U of Iowa to be Christians, but the leaders of their InterVarsity Christian Fellowship to be Christians. To me that's not only reasonable, but to be expected. I wouldn't expect the campus group of Young Republicans to have to allow a Democrat to be their president, or vice versa. I would expect the campus #MeToo group to be able to refuse sexual predators as their officers. So I think it's OK for the ICVF group to have a rule that their officers be Christians. Obviously, from the record, some university administrators see it differently, which just baffles the dickens out of me.

> Same thing. And if you're leaving out pertinent info,

You seem to be misunderstanding. They are not demanding that the university leaders be Christians, but only assuming it's reasonable that the leaders of their Christian organization (IVCF) should be Christian. The universities thought it reasonable that if an atheist wanted to be the president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, that the group should be open to that, and if they were not open to that, they were to be thrown off campus. Thus, they were thrown off campus.

> Discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether you believe it or not.

Of course it is. But the group wasn't discriminating against anyone. Anyone can come to their group meeting. Anyone can be part of their group. They don't exclude, ridicule, picket, protest. A belief (having a position in your mind) is not not discrimination; discriminating against someone is discrimination.

> All your bullet points suggest the christians were doing things wrong.

Such as? I don't get it. What were they doing wrong?

> I'm simply pointing out that just because a group believes something doesn't make that something acceptable.

I agree. White supremacy, racism, sexism, misogyny—all unacceptable.

> I'm curious what that message was, and I'm not convinced this is even true.

Well, then do the research before you judge.

>> Should a gay photographer be obligated to photograph a wedding at Westboro Baptist Church?

> That's a great question. But it's hard to make an accurate comparison because no photographer is obligated to accept any job where they have to make house calls.

The point isn't house calls, but if you have a business that serves the public, are you ever allowed to draw lines based on conscience and conscientious objection?

How would [i]anybody[/i] feel if someone from Westboro asked a gay photographer to photograph their wedding, specifically to trap them, and then protest their business, write and call death threats to the family, and sue them? But that's [i]exactly[/i] what happened with the bakers. It's outrageous. That photographer, in my hypothetical situation, should have a right to say no, and the customer should go elsewhere.

> But also because we know that church will discriminate, so that also muddies the analogy.

You don't seem to be grasping the idea that sometimes values come into conflict. Suppose Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein goes to a flower shop and wants the women there to do a big flower arrangement for his date with a 14-yr-old that night? If they refuse, is it discrimination? Should he be allowed to sue them?

But those are just conflicts of conscience. Add to the mix that we're talking about a fundamental American right (the very first one on the Bill of Rights): freedom of religious expression, and freedom of religious oppression. In the cases of conflict (discrimination against religious expression and discrimination against sexual orientation), obviously somebody's going to win that and someone's going to lose and be able to scream, "But that's discrimination!" Yes, but somewhere we have to have a mechanism to rank such things, and the high courts have done that for us: The Bill of Rights supersedes civil rights.

> That's hard to answer because I don't think all doctors perform abortions.

They don't. Very few (comparatively) do.

> but I think doctors only focus on the services that they want to focus on.

Then that's discrimination also. Why do the doctors get to choose on religious grounds (as they do) if bakers can't?

You see, there are these conflicts of values in America, and it's impossible that everyone wins. Some forms of discrimination outrank others, and our legislators and courts are deciding where these lines are. In the end, however, someone is ALWAYS going to be able to say, "But that's discrimination against ME," whether it's sexual orientation or freedom of religious expression.

> Those are clearly hate related symbols. Again, not a fair comparison.

It IS a fair comparison. The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) labels Christians, Christian ministries, and churches as "hate groups."

The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) considers the cross to be hate symbol.

In February, 2018 (I mentioned this case to you), a student organization at Harvard Univ. was placed on probation because they believe in traditional marriage. They had done or said nothing to vilify or legislate, and yet they were told they give "hate a platform." There had been no hate. Christians and Christian symbols are being identifies as "hate groups" and their symbols as "hate-related symbols." So it's a VERY fair comparison. Christians are being legislated against, discriminated against, and excluded because we are Christians.

Here's another one: November 14, 2018: A Christian student senator at UC Berkeley was harassed for [b]abstaining[/b] from a pro-LGBTQ vote. Isabella Chow abstained from a largely symbolic student vote Oct. 31 because she did not fully agree with certain clauses, not the majority of the pro-LGBTQ+ bills. She was labeled "homophobic" and "transphobic." She wrote an op-ed piece for the school paper, which refused to print it. In her statement, she said discrimination is "never, ever OK" and condemned Christian bullies and bigots, calling the LGBTQ community valid and loved, even if their views were different. She said, "I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman. For me, to love another person does not mean that I silently concur when, at the bottom of my heart, I do not believe that your choices are right or the best for you as an individual." She concluded by saying she affirms that each person in the room deserves respect, acknowledgement, legal protection, and love. The backlash against her was quick. The school paper that had refused to run her statement quickly published a condemnatory piece, accusing her of creating a "toxic space for LGBTQ+ communities." The student senator who sponsored the bill labelled her a bigot, accusing her of "hateful prejudices" that were "disturbing and irreconcilable." Over 1000 students signed a petition accusing her of hatred and called her comments "violent, hypocritical, and bigoted."

My question is: Who is really the hater here? Who is really discriminating? Who is bigoted?

> discrimination based on sexual orientation discriminates, no matter what kind of belief it is.

The courts, including the Supreme Court of the US, disagree with you.

I asked you what principals were the contention and you respond by providing a link to list of all things that they believe, but not specifically the parts that infringe or discriminate against others?

> They were kicked off of U Iowa for requiring their leaders to be Christian

Is U Iowa a strictly christian organization? No? Then why do you think it's wrong to require leaders to be christian?

> They were kicked off of Wayne State Univ for requiring their leaders to share their Christian faith

Same thing. And if you're leaving out pertinent info, then I may get this wrong. If you're leaving off pertinent info to make your position seem stronger, then that is not very honest.

> Rollins College: "derecognized for violating the school's nondiscrimination policy." In other words, IVCF believes in traditional marriage.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether you believe it or not.

All your bullet points suggest the christians were doing things wrong.

> if someone is involved in a same-sex relationship they can't be a club leader

That's discrimination. This is not a christian organization.

> I think KKK is a despicable organization. They are truly a hate group, and a dangerous one.

I'm not comparing a religious group with the kkk, I'm simply pointing out that just because a group believes something doesn't make that something acceptable. Just because a group believes gays are bad or same sex marriage isn't acceptable, doesn't make that belief acceptable.

> They drew the line at putting a message on a cake that violated their religious beliefs.

I'm curious what that message was, and I'm not convinced this is even true.

> Tell me this: Should a gay photographer be obligated to photograph a wedding at Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a great question. But it's hard to make an accurate comparison because no photographer is obligated to accept any job where they have to make house calls. But also because we know that church will discriminate, so that also muddies the analogy.

> Should a doctor who opposes abortion be required to perform one?

That's hard to answer because I don't think all doctors perform abortions. I'm no expert, but I think doctors only focus on the services that they want to focus on.

> Should a Jewish baker be required to make a cake with a swastika, or a black baker to make a KKK cake?

Those are clearly hate related symbols. Again, not a fair comparison.

I think a business should be able to do just about anything they want as long as it doesn't violate anyones rights, and discrimination based on sexual orientation discriminates, no matter what kind of belief it is.

> What principals were they? See, if a christian principal is to discriminate, then what do you expect? I don't know what those principals are, so I can't comment.

Here is their doctrinal statement and vision statement ([url]https://intervarsity.org/about-us/what-we-believe[/url])

Here are some articles about their campus access ([url]https://intervarsity.org/campus-access-issues[/url])

[list][*] They were kicked off of U Iowa for requiring their leaders to be Christian
[*] They were kicked off of Wayne State Univ for requiring their leaders to share their Christian faith
[*] Rollins College: "derecognized for violating the school's nondiscrimination policy." In other words, IVCF believes in traditional marriage.
[*] Tufts Univ.: throw out because they require their leaders to be Christians
[*] Vanderbilt Univ: derecognized these organizations for non-compliance with the University’s nondiscrimination policy.[/list]

In other words, IVCF believes in traditional marriage. But IVCF lets anyone come to their meeting, they are not involved in hate speech. Probably the only practical application of this is that if someone is involved in a same-sex relationship they can't be a club leader. They can certainly attend and be part of the group.

> How do you think people should treat a group that follows kkk principals? Just because it's a groups principal doesn't mean its acceptable.

I think KKK is a despicable organization. They are truly a hate group, and a dangerous one.

> Sounds to me that the bakers discriminated against a couple for being gay.

The bakers offered to sell the customers anything else in the store (so no discrimination; it's not like they asked them to leave). They offered to sell them a cake that was already made (so no discrimination; they were willing to have them as customers). They drew the line at putting a message on a cake that violated their religious beliefs.

Tell me this: Should a gay photographer be obligated to photograph a wedding at Westboro Baptist Church? Should a doctor who opposes abortion be required to perform one? Should a Jewish baker be required to make a cake with a swastika, or a black baker to make a KKK cake?

Or is it reasonable that at some point conscientious objection is a viable reason to encourage a person to shop elsewhere?

> In 2011, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) groups around the country were excluded from college campuses because they had leadership policies requiring that leaders follow Christian principles. Even though they were minding their own business, they were chased off campuses by the LGBTQ+ groups. They had done nothing to vilify or legislate against LGBT.

What principals were they? See, if a christian principal is to discriminate, then what do you expect? I don't know what those principals are, so I can't comment.

How do you think people should treat a group that follows kkk principals? Just because it's a groups principal doesn't mean its acceptable.

> In 2012 & 2013, bakers in CO (Jack Philipps) & OR (the Kleins) were sued and fined for not making a specific cake for a gay couple. They had not vilified or legislated, but they took them to court and they were fined.

Sounds to me that the bakers discriminated against a couple for being gay.

>> Earlier in the thread I listed many, many exercises of legislation to discriminate against Christian groups and businesses.
> Could you please include them here, I can't find them.

Sure. These are just SOME of what has happened, but enough to give a picture.

In 2011, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) groups around the country were excluded from college campuses because they had leadership policies requiring that leaders follow Christian principles. Even though they were minding their own business, they were chased off campuses by the LGBTQ+ groups. They had done nothing to vilify or legislate against LGBT.

In 2012 & 2013, bakers in CO (Jack Philipps) & OR (the Kleins) were sued and fined for not making a specific cake for a gay couple. They had not vilified or legislated, but they took them to court and they were fined.

In 2016, the US Commission on Civil Rights vilified Christians, churches, and ministries as discriminatory, intolerant, racism sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and supremacist.

In 2017, the SPLC labeled churches and Christian organization as "hate groups." Mark Potok (a former SPLC spokesman) said he wanted to "destroy these groups, completely destroy them." These churches and ministries are neither vilifying nor legislating anything or anybody.

In Feb, 2018, the University of Central Oklahoma, where Drag Queen shows and safe sex carnivals are welcome on campus, refused to let Ken Ham speak about creationism. The LGBT activists got his invitation disapproved. His speech was to be on Genesis, not gay issues. There was not going to be any vilifying or legislating. (Disclaimer: I don't agree with Ken Ham, either, but he should be free to speak.)

Feb, 2018. A Christian couple in Edmonton, Alberta, were turned down for adopting a child because they believe in the Bible and for not fully endorsing LGBT values and practices. They had done nothing to vilify or legislate.

Feb 2018. A student organization at Harvard Univ. was placed on probation because they believe in traditional marriage. They had done or said nothing to vilify or legislate, and yet they were told they give "hate a platform." There had been no hate.

May 2018. A motivational speaker at a high school in Michigan was disparaged because his website said he was Christian. On that basis alone he was tossed out.

June 2018. The IVCF group at the Univ of Iowa was kicked off campus for requiring leaders to be Christians. They were tossed off by the LGBT community.

June 2018. A Christian high school teacher in Brownsberg, IN, was forced to resign when he refused to call transgender students by their chosen names instead of—as had been his policy for years—to call all students by their last names. Is this vilifying transgendered students? I don't think so.

June 2018. The Canadian govt refuses to recognize a Christian lawyer because he believes in traditional marriage. He had said or done nothing to vilify or legislate. The govt also refused Trinity Western Univ the right to start a law school because of LGBT activists. The school had not vilified or legislated anything.

Nov 2018: a Christian student senator at UC Berkeley was harassed for abstaining from a pro-LGBTQ vote. She was harassed by the LGBT community and called hateful because she said, "I don't discriminate against anyone, but I'll abstain from this vote."

June 2019. The CA legislature promoted a bill (ACR 99) to force pastors to embrace pro-LGBTQ ideology.

July 2019. A speaker who was a Christian was disinvited from speaking at a conference about graphics designing.

July 2019: A private Christian school in CA is being forced to shut down because it is not 100% accepting of all same-sex relationship.

Sept 2019: Young Life voted off of Duke Campus because of LGBTQ.

> Oh, you're citing a specific case where the wording on the cake was at issue? Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Could you provide a link so we can see exactly what the circumstances were?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzI5KTRt-qI

https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-dildo-cake-other-bakeries-wouldnt-create-1077250

There are plenty of articles out there if you want to investigate it.

> It doesn't sound like there was anything vulgar, sounds like he's discriminating because it's for a gay couple. I think that's wrong. If he doesn't want to make cakes as a business, for everyone, then he should not be in the cake making business. On the surface, this is simple discrimination.

I don't think the message they wanted was vulgar; it was just contrary to his religious beliefs. In a case where one discrimination (against a gay couple) clashes with another discrimination (freedom of religion and religious expression), the courts decided that discrimination against religion was a higher discrimination than that against the gay couple. As I mentioned before, the Bill of Rights supersedes civil rights. The couple could easily go to another shop to get their cake; they chose instead to sue and harass Philipps.

> Not sure if you're trying to be insulting by making this assumption or not.

Oh, no, I'm not trying to be insulting at all. Instead, I was aiming at trying to be emphatic. Sorry if that attempt failed.

> when I was a kid and through my teens, I was an asshole to gays or anyone else who I thought was different. I just didn't have a bible to justify it, so I grew out of it.

Whoa, this is harsh. The Bible doesn't justify treating people poorly. As a matter of fact, it says just the opposite: "Love those who mistreat you." "Love your enemy." "Do good to all people."

> to be so confident that you know what this god wants

That's what the Bible is: God's revelation of Himself and what He wants. What he wants is a love relationship with you, and with all humans. He wants to set you free from the sins and enslave you and are killing you, and bring you into a place of goodness, peace, and harmony with Him.

> when you can't even reliably demonstrate that this god even exists.

This is a completely different conversation.

> Earlier in the thread I listed many, many exercises of legislation to discriminate against Christian groups and businesses.

Could you please include them here, I can't find them.

> And if the baker refused to do that one particular message because it violated his religious beliefs, the customers should just go to the bakery across the street and take their business elsewhere.

Oh, you're citing a specific case where the wording on the cake was at issue? Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Could you provide a link so we can see exactly what the circumstances were?

> In most cases, as you can see, the LGBT activists targeted the Christian groups for discrimination even though the Christian groups were just minding their own business.

I don't see that. You provided a single example, and I have to take your word for that too. I agree that groups targeting other groups is messed up, but the details matter.

> In the case of the bakers, those businesses were specifically targeted (especially Jack Philipps) for harassment.

I'm not familiar with the case, but after a quick google search I found a web site that supports this guy, and here's a blurb from that...

[quote]Jack explained that he would be happy to design a cake for the customers for a different event, or sell them anything else in his shop. But he does not create cakes expressing messages or celebrating events that conflict with his deeply held religious beliefs.[/quote]

It doesn't sound like there was anything vulgar, sounds like he's discriminating because it's for a gay couple. I think that's wrong. If he doesn't want to make cakes as a business, for everyone, then he should not be in the cake making business. On the surface, this is simple discrimination.

> I get the feeling, though, that some Christians somewhere along the way have treated you badly.

Not at all. I live in a very faithless area.

> Have you been turned down for service somewhere?

No, I'm not gay. Not sure if you're trying to be insulting by making this assumption or not. But when I was a kid and through my teens, I was an asshole to gays or anyone else who I thought was different. I just didn't have a bible to justify it, so I grew out of it. I find it incredibly offensive, to be so confident that you know what this god wants, when you can't even reliably demonstrate that this god even exists.