MovieChat Forums > God's Not Dead 2 (2016) Discussion > GND2's list of court cases

GND2's list of court cases

posted 9 years ago by practicepiano
60 replies | jump to latest

The list of court cases from the closing credits of the film can be found here:

http://godsnotdead.com/blog/real-life-imitates-reel-life/

I've only skimmed it, but there doesn't seem to be anything remotely like the premise of the film on the list. It's mostly people who didn't want to do what they normally do for a living, because a customer or patient was gay or wanted reproductive choice.

Here's the list:

State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers: The State of Washington and a same-sex couple sued a florist to force her to create floral arrangements celebrating a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Hands On Originals v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission: A human rights commission in Kentucky sued a t-shirt print shop owner to force him to make t-shirts with text promoting a gay pride festival.

Elane Photography v. Willock: A New Mexico Human Rights Commission sued a wedding photographer to force her to use her photographic talents to tell the story of a same-sex commitment ceremony.

Cochran v. City of Atlanta: The Fire Chief of Atlanta sued the city after it fired him for expressing his religious beliefs about marriage in a book he wrote on his own time.

Hobby Lobby & Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell: Two businesses sued the federal government after it attempted to force them to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance plans.

Erwin v. Liberty Ridge Farms: A New York human rights commission sued two owners of a family farm to force them to open it to same-sex wedding ceremonies.

March for Life v. Burwell: A pro-life organization sued the federal government after it attempted to force the organization to provide abortion-inducing drugs through its health insurance plan.

Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast: A lesbian couple sued a bed and breakfast owner to force her to allow them to stay in her home in violation of her religious beliefs against sex outside of marriage.

Knapp v. City of Coeur d’Alene: Two ordained ministers sued the city after it informed the ministers that they would be forced to officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies at their wedding chapel.

Bernstein v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association: A homosexual couple sued a non-profit group associated with a Methodist denomination to force it to open its pavilion for a civil union ceremony.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig: A same-sex couple and the Colorado civil rights commission sued a cake artist to force him to create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Baker v. Wildflower Inn: A Vermont human rights commission and two women sued a family-owned bed and breakfast to force it to host a reception honoring a same-sex wedding.

Ward v. Polite: A counseling graduate student sued Eastern Michigan University after the University expelled her for referring a client to another counselor when that client asked to receive counseling about a same-sex relationship.

Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Burwell: A Christian publisher sued the federal government after it attempted to force it to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in its health insurance plan.

Fellowship of Catholic University Students v. Burwell: A non-profit Catholic organization sued the federal government when it attempted to force it to use its health insurance plan to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.

Cryer v. Klein: A same-sex couple sued a cake artist and her business to force them to create a wedding cake promoting and endorsing a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Cenzon-DeCarlo v. The Mount Sinai Hospital: A nurse asked the federal government to investigate a hospital after that hospital forced her to assist in an abortion in violation of her religious beliefs.

Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Centers: A nurse applicant sued a federally funded health center in Tampa after the center refused to consider her for employment because she was a member of a pro-life medical association and had a faith-based objection to prescribing some abortion-inducing drugs.

Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich: Pharmacy owners sued the Illinois state government when it required all pharmacies to stock and dispense abortion-inducing drugs.

Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists: Planned Parenthood of Arizona sued to invalidate some Arizona laws protecting the right of hospitals, pharmacies, and health professionals to decline providing abortions when doing so would violate their religious beliefs.

Doe v. Vanderbilt University: Nursing students filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services because Vanderbilt University’s nurse residency application required applicants to pledge that they would participate in abortion procedures.

Dobson v. Burwell: Dr. James Dobson and his Christian non-profit organization sued the federal government after it attempted to force them to provide abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance plan.

Gusich v. California Department of Managed Health Care: The California Department of Managed Health Care attempted to force a non-profit religious university to provide elective abortions through the university’s health insurance plan.

Lockyer v. Gonzales: The California Attorney General sued to invalidate a federal law protecting doctors and other medical professionals from being discriminated against by their employers for refusing to provide abortions.

Foothill Church v. California Department of Managed Health Care: Numerous California churches sued the California Department of Managed Health Care to protect their religious beliefs after the Department required all employers, including churches, to pay for elective abortions in their health insurance plans.

Danquah v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey: Twelve nurses sued the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey after the university forced the nurses to assist in providing abortions.

Ghiotto v. City of San Diego: The San Diego Fire Department required some firefighters to take part in a city-sponsored parade celebrating homosexual behavior. The firefighters sued to avoid promoting a message they found religiously objectionable.

Howe v. Burwell: A pro-life Vermont man sued the federal government after he lost his private health plan due to Obamacare, and was then forced to obtain health insurance that required him to pay a fee to cover elective abortions.

Stormans v. Wiesman: The Washington State Pharmacy Board required a family owned pharmacy to stock and dispense abortion-inducing drugs even though doing so would violate the pharmacy owners’ religious beliefs. The pharmacy owners sued to protect their religious beliefs.

Grace Schools v. Burwell: Grace College and Seminary in Indiana and Biola University in California sued the federal government when it attempted to force these institutions to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception..

Connecticut v. United States: Connecticut, Illinois, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Oregon sued to invalidate a federal law protecting doctors and other medical professionals from being discriminated against by their employers for refusing to provide abortions.

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association v. Leavitt: A pro-abortion group sued to invalidate a federal law protecting doctors and other medical professionals from being discriminated against by their employers for refusing to provide abortions.

Healy v. United States Coast Guard: The United States Coast Guard informed an officer that he must be injected with a vaccine derived from an aborted child, even though it conflicts with his Catholic beliefs. The officer then sued.

Ave Maria School of Law v. Burwell: A Catholic law school sued the federal government when it forced the school to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.

Brooker v. Franks: A Missouri State University student sued university officials after they required her to write and sign a letter to the Missouri Legislature in support of homosexual adoption as part of a class assignment and then punished the student for declining to write the letter.

Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley: A counseling student sued Augusta State University officials after they told her that her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession and that she must change her beliefs in order to graduate.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Leavitt: A pro-abortion group sued to invalidate a federal law protecting doctors and other medical professionals from being discriminated against by their employers for refusing to provide abortions.

Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell: Four Christian universities in Oklahoma sued the federal government when it forced the universities to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.

[–] Terrapin2212 9 years ago

So you liberals believe that

- an independent pharmacy owner should be forced to stock medications that induce abortions (will you also force McDonald's to sell tacos so that Mexicans are not "marginalized"??)

- Christians have no place in health care and that doctors and nurses should be forced to perform abortions as part of their educational curriculum

- that it was right for Atlanta to punish the firefighter for voicing his personal religious beliefs while OFF THE JOB

.......

Guess you really don't value freedom do you.

[–] rami-gilneas 9 years ago

"- an independent pharmacy owner should be forced to stock medications that induce abortions (will you also force McDonald's to sell tacos so that Mexicans are not "marginalized"??)"

Stupid analogy.

Dont forget that the Bible clearly condones abortions that are induced by some "medicine", but only the husband can order this kind of abortion, even against the will of his wife.

Yeah, the good old testament. ;)

"- Christians have no place in health care and that doctors and nurses should be forced to perform abortions as part of their educational curriculum"

No one wants this.

"- that it was right for Atlanta to punish the firefighter for voicing his personal religious beliefs while OFF THE JOB"

He wasnt really "OFF THE JOB".

[–] neliberal 9 years ago

- dumb analogy. McDonalds is not in the business of selling Mexican food, but hamburgers and fries, basically. By contrast, a pharmacy owner is in the business of providing prescriptions as prescribed by a physician. If you're a pharmacist, you don't get to pick and choose which medications you'll provide, that is done by the physician and his patient. And is the drug in question used for other things? A popular whine by so-called "Christian" pharmacists is to oppose dispensing "the pill" which is only a dose of hormones, and is used by literally millions of American women/girls for acne! Note too, many of the so-called "Christian" pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions aren't independent, but work in chain stores, but impose their personal religious values on others. Amusingly, these are often the same people who complain about the non-existent "sharia law", demanding it not be used anywhere, but don't see the irony in demanding they be allowed to impose their own Christian version of sharia law on others.
It's kind of a "Religious discrimination for me, but not for thee" philosophy.

- other than you, who is claiming Christians have no place in health care? Who is trying to force doctors or nurses to perform abortions? On the other hand, abortion IS a standard and routine procedure within the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology. There ARE reasons to know how to perform one correctly if one is going to work in that specialty. Look at the case from Ireland of the woman who developed a severe and life-threatening medical condition half-way through her desired pregnancy! Rather than perform the procedure that would have saved her life, she was quite literally left screaming in agony for three long days until her heart gave out and she (and the fetus) died. It was a given to every doctor who examined her that if nothing was done, she and the baby would die. But if an abortion was done, the baby would die but she would live! Isn't this something she and her husband should have been allowed to decide for themselves? Apparently not...allowing her to needlessly die in agony was apparently the "Christian" thing to do.
No, sorry...you sign up for a program in a field, you complete ALL the work required in that field, not just those that don't offend your personal values (or are you advocating to give degrees to people who opt out of required course work by simply having them say "Offends my religious values!").

- the fire chief was not fired for writing a Christian book. He was fired after handing out copies to subordinates, who did not share his Christian beliefs, and then trying to proselytize them during work hours, creating a pressure on them that their career advancement could be in danger unless they accepted HIS religious beliefs. Yet another example of Sharia Law for me, but not for thee...

[–] Terrapin2212 9 years ago

You can argue that its a pharmacist's job to dispense a medication if its otherwise safe for the patient IF that pharmacist is working for a chain, some other employer and is an employee.

However in this case he OWNS his own store. He is a private business owner who should have the right to decide what to carry and not carry in his store. And if he is a Christian, as a BUSINESS OWNER, NOT AN EMPLOYEE, he should not have to stock drugs that cause abortion.

[–] Terrapin2212 9 years ago

Again if the pharmacist owns his/her own store and doesn't work for a larger chain, then it should be up to him alone to decide what to carry and what not to carry. Liberals and Democrats will probably also demand that the abortion drugs be available at all times that it should be illegal for it to even be out of stock for a short while.

At the same time, liberals and Democrats side with the Muslim cashiers at Target who say they shouldn't have to check out customers with pork products and with the Muslim truck drivers who sued their company for forcing them to drive a truck that carried alcohol. Liberals also want us to bend over backwards to accomodate Muslims and support the idea of public schools and even airports having designated prayer rooms for Muslims, and college campuses (this happened at Wichita State University recently) installing special foot baths for Muslim students.

Ireland is a Catholic country and that is there culture. It seems like you and other liberals only criticize Catholic and Christian countries, like how Obama purposely appointed a gay ambassador to the Dominican Republic and purposely lectures Uganda and other African Christians about accepting gay marriage, yet will never lecture Saudi Arabia on gay rights. Even though homosexuality is a capital offense in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. No liberal wants to boycott Saudi Arabia, and indeed are interested in bringing more Muslim immigrants to the West.

[–] missymeghan 9 years ago

That might be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

[–] Terrapin2212 9 years ago

Additionally, a company's owner should have the right to decide what health insurance to provide. Obama was in typical overreach when obamacare wanted to force Christian-owned companies to provide abortion coverage to their employees. You can choose to not work for a Christian company if abortion is so scared to you. Same with sex change operations.

In fact, a company shouldn't be required to provide health insurance at all, in my opinion. Companies should offer plans based on what they need to recruit and retain a sufficiently talented workforce to fit their needs. Perhaps for a company operating in a Christian area, potential employees in general don't see abortion coverage as important. A company with mostly young workers may have many employees who don't care about health coverage at all. I know many people who were forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money for Obamacare for example.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HG_Wells 9 years ago

Interesting. I wonder why the producers of this film didn't focus their attention on one of the cases listed in the end credits rather than create an entirely fictional scenario, unless....ah, of course.

[–] bible-and-science-forum 8 years ago

Interesting. I wonder why the producers of this film didn't focus their attention on one of the cases listed in the end credits rather than create an entirely fictional scenario, unless....ah, of course.

You wonder why? Seriously??? No doubt because the cost of litigation resulting from an onscreen portrayal of real people in what could be interpreted as a negative way is something a small studio can't afford. (Big studios have lawyers on retainer who deal with such nuisance lawsuits all the time.)

I found this movie appalling---but your "wondering why" is inane. Besides, most real life cases are not nearly as interesting as fictional ones. The producers should have surveyed the REAL WORLD cases and pulled elements from each together to create a single fictional case with realistic elements instead of the ridiculous ones from GND2.

Of course, the movie also put the ACLU on the wrong side of the case. The ACLU has often defended Christians and their religious freedoms and freedom of speech in a great many court cases.

[–] larriji-68095 9 years ago

So what is it you don't understand? The premise of the film is accurate. The court cases are accurate. Your reasoning is flawed. Should a gay bakery be required to bake a cake for a Christian wedding? Should a Jewish bakery be required to bake a cake for a Nazi hate group? You believe in rights, just not for Christians, is that it?

[–] archer1812 9 years ago

The premise of the film (stupid at best) has nothing to do with court cases at the end credits. That's his point.

Yes, a "gay bakery" (you mean a bakery own by gay people) should be required to bake a cake for a Christian wedding. To refuse based on religious grounds is discrimination. Besides, if your business is wedding cakes, then Christians would be make up the majority of the customers, silly to turn them down.

As for the silly nazi scenario, it depends. Is it just some Nazis coming in the store for a cake? Then yes, they are required to sell them the cake. Though I don't see a Nazi ever patronize a Jewish business. However, if the hypothetical Nazi were to request some racist slogan or decoration on said cake, then the baker is within his rights to refuse service.

[–] larriji-68095 9 years ago

The fact that you think the premise of the film is stupid at best would seem to indicate that you are intolerant. Have you read all of the court cases? They do have to do with the movie. It's really irrational that so many people seem to be offended that Christians would claim to be discriminated against. You are saying that Christians have fewer rights than someone who is asking a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi celebration. These gays and lesbians can get their wedding cake baked anywhere. The Christian bakers don't refuse service to gays or anyone because of their sexual orientation. They don't ask every person who comes into the store if they are gay or lesbian and then refuse service.
His description of the case in Idaho is inaccurate. The city said the wedding chapel would be in violation and could be jailed and fined because of the Idaho law. Then, when the chapel filed suit to defend their right to refuse marriage service to gays, the city back down. Then they lied about it. The government does not have the right or authority to force a business to violate the free expression of their religious rights. If the expression of their rights includes the fact that they think homosexuality is a sin, then they are within their rights to deny service, if the service, in this case, baking a cake that celebrates a gay wedding. This right actually extends beyond religious rights. If a Jewish baker is asked by a Nazi to bake a cake, it would violate the baker's rights because the Nazi does not respect their right to religious expression or their cultural heritage.

[–] Digsys-Diner 9 years ago

They don't ask every person who comes into the store if they are gay or lesbian and then refuse service.

they may not audibly ask if they ate gay or straight, but two men or two women walking into a bakery says all that needs to be said about their orientation. If you run a public service,than refusing to bake a cake for two gay people is disgusting. The fact that you are defending their "right" to discriminate against someone's sexual orientation, really isn't even surprising.

If a Jewish baker is asked by a Nazi to bake a cake, it would violate the baker's rights because the Nazi does not respect their right to religious expression or their cultural heritage

Wow do you sound like an idiot. Comparing homosexuals trying to get a cake to nazis trying to get a cake is again; a disgusting comparison. A nazi who enters a bakery is a direct threat to the life of the Jewish baker. A homosexual couple is simply two people who love each other, trying to enjoy the same standard of life you as a a straight person deserve.

The only thing you are correct about, is that homosexual people often have to go to more than one bakery before finding people tolerant enough to make a cake for them. This is the reason your religion is dying, because it's intellectually and morally poisonous; as you've clearly illustrated.

[–] larriji-68095 9 years ago

Yes. There are Christian idiots all over the place. The Pilgrims were idiots. Billy Graham was an idiot. Alexander Hamilton. Another idiot. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Another idiot. Habitat for Humanity. More idiots. Praying before beginning work on Habitat for Humanity houses built mostly for single mothers. More idiots. The U.S. is just full of idiots. A homosexual couple is simply trying enjoy the same standard to life that straight people have, by violating the rights of Christians. Actually the cake bakers in Oregon served the lesbian couple multiple times before they asked them to bake a wedding cake. It's delusional to think that a Christian baker would assume that two people of the same sex walking into a store are homosexual or lesbian. Yes, the Christian religion is dying. That's why people are crowding into Lakewood Church in Houston. It's dying. People are dying to get in. After they leave, they die. The parking lot is full of ambulances because people die after leaving the church. It's really a sad situation. What would you do if you volunteered to work on a Habitat for Humanity house and they prayed before beginning work? Protest? Stand across the street with a protest sign?

[–] vnth 9 years ago

does this guy really believe that businesses have the right to deny people services based on their orientation? also, comparing gay people with nazis, wtf?

[–] Digsys-Diner 9 years ago

Woah, slow down. I never said all religious people are idiots. So let's keep this discussion focused or what is being said and not make it seem like in accusing all religious people of being idiots.

The U.S. is just full of idiots.

Stastically, it is.

A homosexual couple is simply trying enjoy the same standard to life that straight people have, by violating the rights of Christians.

So if I create a religion, where heterosexuality is a sin; I should be allowed to deny straight people marriage cakes? Wanting to get married, and enjoy a cake at your wedding; is not a violation of your religious rights. You can disagree with homosexuality being right or wrong, and that simply makes you look like an Idiot; but once you deny someone business because of their sexual orientation, you are discriminating. Baking a cake with two men on it who are about to get married is literally no different than baking a cake with a man and a woman on it; so how is that a violation of your religious rights? Are you sure your not confusing wanting to control someone else's sexuality with a violation of your religious rights? Because two people wanting a cake for their marriage has absolutely no impact on your rights. You will be able to continue being a Christian, owning a baking shop, and continue your life with no repercussions of serving two people a cake. Now you refusing someone a cake, means that their day needs to be readjusted because of your bigotry and unwillingness to honor their business. Like I said before, we live in the 21st century so the amount of bigoted people who own public businesses is significantly lower than even 20 years ago, so we're making progress. Thankfully people like yourself are still vocal to illustrate how bigotry still exists in North America.

What would you do if you volunteered to work on a Habitat for Humanity house and they prayed before beginning work

Habitat for humanity is a great cause, but belief in a deity doesn't give you some special insight into how to be a more moral person than someone who doesn't believe in God. My girlfriend and I are very active in the community, especially in the winter time; and we don't need any special motivation from a divine being to realize being altruistic is the way to go. Also considering i have a fairly religious family who insists on praying before every meal, I'd say I've gotten good at just letting religious people do their thing; without feeling the need to interject. Your attempts to vilify me are pointless so please don't bother. Let's focus on the fact that you made a comparison between two homosexuals wanting a wedding cake, and a nazi entering a Jewish bakery for a cake.

[–] larriji-68095 9 years ago

Dear Mr. Whoa, slow down. Your family expresses themselves freely and you are able to tolerate them. This is a step in the right direction. I assume that by praying, they are Christians and not Muslims or atheists. They could be praying to the pagan God of altruism. Having a meal without praying is literally no different than having a meal and praying. Based on this logic, you should be able to add your own prayer before a meal. Ask them if you can pray to one of the Greek Gods of altruism after they say a prayer.

[–] Digsys-Diner 9 years ago

Ask them if you can pray to one of the Greek Gods of altruism after they say a prayer.

This hardly warrants a response. This in all you get, so good job making yourself look dumb.

[–] kurt-2000 9 years ago

The U.S. is just full of idiots.
Stastically, it is.

Wow...is there anyone you haven't thoroughly insulted?

[–] Digsys-Diner 9 years ago

Its called a joke Kurt. No need to be so, ahem, butt hurt.

[–] archer1812 9 years ago

The fact that you think the premise of the film is stupid at best would seem to indicate that you are intolerant. Have you read all of the court cases? They do have to do with the movie.

The premise of this movie is that a teacher was taken to court because she responded to a student's questions about Jesus. She wasn't proselytizing, she wasn't "witnessing", she didn't make the class pray, or anything like that. You know, things that actually are against the law. And no teacher has ever been sent to court for answering a question about Jesus. That's why the premise is stupid. And none of the court cases listed have anything to do with the premise of that movie. They are listed simply as a cynical way to push the "Christians are oppressed" narrative that Evangelicals love push.

. You are saying that Christians have fewer rights than someone who is asking a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi celebration.

I said nothing of the kind. Here's the thing that many protestant evangelicals don't get: Discrimination is not a relgious right. So no rights are being taken away when the law says that you can't do that.

The government does not have the right or authority to force a business to violate the free expression of their religious rights. If the expression of their rights includes the fact that they think homosexuality is a sin, then they are within their rights to deny service, if the service, in this case, baking a cake that celebrates a gay wedding.

Actually, no. When business owners open their doors, they have a responsibility to treat all customers equally under the law. Federal law prohibits discrimination by private businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. And many states (backward states like Mississippi are always the exception) have passed laws to include discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This right actually extends beyond religious rights. If a Jewish baker is asked by a Nazi to bake a cake, it would violate the baker's rights because the Nazi does not respect their right to religious expression or their cultural heritage.

Again, you don't have a religious right to discriminate others.

As for the hypothetical Jewish baker and his Nazi customer, is a bit more complicated. First, the same thing applies as above. Businesses are required to treat ALL customers equally under the law. It has nothing to do with feelings.
However, he can refuse service if said customer is conducting criminal activity in the premises, or the customer’s behaviour or decorum is disruptive and interferes with the running of business. Or if they behave in a manner that would represent a threat to the safety or the welfare of the other customers, employees or the business itself.

But as long as the Nazi is behaving in a proper manner as any other customer would, the owner can't refuse service simply because the customer doesn't "respect his religious or cultural heritage" or he doesn't like his looks. Of course,if the Nazi were to come in in full Nazi regalia, the argument can be made that his mere presence alone is disruptive and hence service can be denied. It's a grey area.

[–] larriji-68095 9 years ago

I can give you one example of discrimination against Christians that is common: Christians want to have a Bible study and are denied use of a public facility, high school, college. School officials think that because there is an establishment clause, we need to control and block any kind of religious activity on school property. But this isn't the case, and courts have found in favor of Christians in this regard. The Alliance Defense Fund could not list all of the cases that they are involved in or represent in the movie.

The federal law you speak of is from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As you say, it talks about race, religion, or national origin. The law was written to stop whites from not serving blacks, or let them into their businesses. Thus the race or national origin. Businesses can't simply deny service because of they way someone looks or religion. There is a humorous episode about this on Curb My Enthusiasm. Larry David going into a Palestinian restaurant, and then being denounced by Jews, and celebrated by Palestinians. They don't know he's Jewish. The law was written specifically, so that people can't for whatever reason to walk into a store and say, I'm offending you and being offensive, you still have to serve me.

But what you are talking about is sexual orientation. And what the law is about with cake baking that you are referring to is providing a specific kind of service. It's not about denying service based on race or religion. The last time I checked, Gays and lesbians are allowed into any business. Why wouldn't they be? In fact, the Christian couple from Oregon that said they could not bake the cake for the lesbian couples wedding, took their business before they asked them to bake a cake for their wedding. The idea is to provide excellent service and make money. In hind sight, they should not have quoted something from the Old Testament about the sin of homosexuality while saying they could not bake their wedding cake. But I don't think there was a deliberate attempt to offend them.

People assume that because SCUTUS ruled for gay marriage as a right, Christians have to bake cakes for gay and lesbian weddings. But so long as Americans do not in general deny service in line with the Civil Rights Act, they are within their rights to decline. This may sound offensive to some people. But Christianity is offensive to people. Jesus offended people. That's why they killed him.

[–] MooseAdventures 8 years ago

most of these cases are just stupid extremist christians being racist or homophobic and then whining when they cant execute their racist or homophobic agenda. several of these cases are about how they got sued for denying the service for gays or muslims, but they throw the "IT'S AGAINST OUR RELIGION!!!" argument like it has validity.