Sunday, June 29, 2014

Just How Dangerous is it Being Homosexual?



All this month, I've been talking about how dangerous homosexuality is and what the "okay to be gay" secular culture won't tell you.
But now…I get to the true point of the matter. Many atheists I've argued with about this at some point ask me the same thing: "why can't you let two people of the same gender love each other? How does it affect you?" No doubt I bet you've been asked the same. Much like signing a contract with a notorious human rights abuser, the devil is in the details.

Take the first question itself for example. It implies that the two people in question are in love, as in they love each other and no one else. Despite what news footage of gay weddings and Modern Family reruns tell you, all is not well in the land of rainbow flags (this is of course implying anything ever was).
For comparison, take a look at straight marriage. What is one of the expectations of it? Most would say that they would be exclusive to each other and be with no one else. Sure, one may cheat on the other, but the expectation is there. This is in fact not the case with gay so-called marriage.
And it's not just my opinion either. That's also what the San Francisco University found. (Here's the link)

So then…is it any wonder why the gay community has the following problems? (Again, sources can be found at the bottom).

-Out of all the new HIV cases in America, over 60% of them are from homosexual activity. In spite of the fact gay men make up only 4% of the total US adult male population, they account for 3 out of every 4 new HIV cases.
-63% of all new syphilis cases are from homosexual activity.
-In the gay community, there also exists a practice called "bug catching" sometimes called "bug chasing".  It's when you actively seek out someone with a known STD and have sex with them.

Now, if it seems like I'm just picking on gay men, let's look at gay women:
-the notion of monogamy in a lesbian relationship is also a lie.
-According to the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention",  54 percent of lesbian couples had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents from their partner, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time."
-The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false:
The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes: "The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW (women who have sex with women) was similar to all wsw." One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."
-Lesbians and bisexual women have a higher rate for breast cancer than straight women, according to the American Cancer Society
-Gay women are also at a higher risk for ovarian, colon and lung cancer due to having a higher body mass index than straight women and are much more likely to be smokers than straight women.

The facts are so obvious on this, but since it's not politically correct, this might explain why you've never heard of any of this.
You will also note that the majority of this information comes from credible medical bodies that know how to crunch the statistical data.
This is not about nor has it ever been about "equal rights." In light of all this information, that buzzword is garbage.

And no surprise here: atheists are behind covering up this evidence. Another proof atheists are idiots.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

List of Things You See at a Gay Pride Parade



Let me ask you about parades for a moment:
If you were to attend a Memorial Day parade, what types of things would you see? You could say US flags, people marching in formation, veterans…perhaps graves depending on the final end for the parade.

If you were to attend a Mardi Gras parade, what would you see? Floats, beads, bars, maybe a few drunks in public (this is in no way is putting down Mardi Gras as a whole, but I'm just pointing out what the first things people think of).

What do you see when you attend a gay pride parade? You probably think the rainbow flag and that's about it, right?
Oh, my….there is so much more to it than that.

I've tried my best to find a list of things you see in a search engine and as far as I can tell, this is the first one ever. I know I'm likely going to be corrected on that, and some are going to write and say "I've attended gay pride parades and you're lying" or some garbage like that, so I'm going to include sources that prove me right.

So what do you see at a gay pride parade?

-condoms being passed out everywhere…even to kids.
-full frontal nudity…even in front of kids
-Lubricants passed around everywhere
-Sado-masochism openly promoted
-gay spousal abuse
-tons of elaborate cross-dressing
-disturbing body piercings
-hateful and sociopathic rants against anyone who dares disagree with the gay lifestyle
(Sidenote: if you get into a brawl with the gay activists, don't expect the police to help you: 9 times out of ten, they'll arrest you for promoting hate speech.)
-pamphlets promoting such groups as the Leather Alliance. Speaking of which….
-Leather…lots and LOTS of leather
-a disturbing fascination the attendees have concerning children
-tons of transexuals

Friday, June 20, 2014

Who Injures the Sacred Heart? (Part 3)



In the past three posts concerning the Sacred Heart, we've looked into who injures the Heart of Our Lord and Savior: Jews and heretics. Christians would agree with Jews injuring because there is no other way to God other than Jesus; most Christians would also agree it's important to know the correct teaching on God to properly worship God. But neither of these two groups cause the Sacred Heart the most injuries.
Because both of these groups--as much as they attack Christianity--are at least honest in saying they are enemies of Christ and you must give credit to people who are honest about their intentions. (I am of course quoting from the official text on the Sacred Heart). Indeed, these two groups can be shown the error of their ways and often are. Neither of these strike the Sacred Heart or caused more blood to be sweat by Jesus than this third and most prevalent group of them all:

Ungrateful Catholics.

Surprised? You shouldn't be. The Bible itself gives several examples of people who hear the Word but wind up damned, including (but in no way limited to) the parable of the Weeds Among Wheat (some versions call it the Wheat Among Chaff), the parable of Sheep and Goats, the Judgment of the Nations, several verses in the letter of James, and several in Revelations.

If Bible verses are not enough for you, consider these polls and facts gathered concerning Catholics in America alone:
82% of American Catholics do not think artificial birth control is morally wrong; the official teaching of the Catholic Church is artificial birth control is morally wrong.
56% of American Catholics are in favor of so-called "same-sex marriage"; the official teaching of the Catholic Church is these types of unions are an abomination.
60% of American Catholics either didn't know or disagreed with the notion that the pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of morals and faith; the official teaching of the Church is the pope IS infallible on these matters.
83% of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence.
Seven out of 10 Catholics polled said the Church should let priests marry, and let women become priests; the official teaching of the Church is ONLY men should be priests as they reflect Christ Himself. As far as marriage of priests go…that just shows how ignorant the typical American Catholic is.

Now, some may say, "Well, laymen may have problems but we can at least trust priests and bishops to lead people to the truth."

To that, I say there's a reason for the saying "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Now, this is not to say just because someone is a priest or bishop, then what they say is falsehood right away; the real point of the quote was that priests and bishops (yes, I'm counting cardinals in with regular bishops) by their divine office are held to a higher standard and can reach more souls. If more souls are damned because of their actions, then they pay a higher price for their failures.

After all, laymen may believe in a heresy, but it's often a bishop who invented the heresy. Some laymen may prefer to go to a pro-gay Catholic Mass and some may go to a Latin Mass but only a cardinal has the authority to close the latter in favor of the former in times of crisis. Catholics may choose to go to Mass on a non-Sunday holy day of obligation but the bishops have the authority to reduce the number of holy days (one state in particular has only 2--yes, just 2--holy days of obligation). 
And when was the last time the Ascension of Jesus was celebrated on a Thursday, not Sunday?

So, the next time an atheist accuses a Christian of not following their faith and think they're being cute or clever, sock them a new one because Jesus Himself beat them to it. 
Yet another proof of atheists being idiots.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Who Injures the Sacred Heart? (Part 2.2)



Many of you may be wondering why I put the heretic group as two posts. I was at first going to put it as one post but as I was writing it, it occurred to me that many people hear these heresies but just didn't have a name to put to them, hence why I put more time in the name origin than the actual thought. These last few don't really have a name history but are all the more deadly to faith in Christ and His Holy Church.

So, on with the countdown...

#6: Gnosticism
Unlike the other heretical teachings, this one isn't so much one teaching but a series of bogus teachings. Gnostic promoters would have you believe Gnosticism predates Christianity yet the earliest known record of it dates only to the second century AD and every scholar now admits there is no pre-Christian gnostic text.
There are also various forms of Gnosticism but they all in a nutshell say the same thing: the material world is evil and the spiritual world is good.
Why is this so dangerous? Because it promotes the idea that people shouldn't bother doing any type of good on earth and instead focus only on the afterlife.
What does the modern Gnostic say? "I'm spiritual but not religious."

#5: Arianism
Created by an early bishop in the Catholic Church, Arianism is the belief Jesus is not divine. Promoters of this have different views of what Jesus is, but they agree He wasn't divine.
What does a modern Arianist say? "Jesus was just a good moral teacher but nothing more than that."
Why is this so dangerous? Because it ignores too much vital info from Jesus' teachings; the key among them being (as CS Lewis pointed out) good moral teachers don't call themselves God Incarnate. Either they're lying about it, in which case you can't call them good for telling that big a lie or they're telling the truth, in which case they're much more than a moral teacher.

#4: Universalism
There really isn't much on this one so I won't dwell on it very long. This one says that all religions in the world are equally valid paths to salvation. A modern universalist would say, "We all have different opinions and all of them are equally valid."
Why is this so dangerous? Because it doesn't bother to look at key differences in teachings that set each faith apart from the others; not only that, several religious teachings (Eastern ones, mostly) don't make sense even within their own faith system.

#3: Indifferentism
I need to clarify here what I mean by indifferentism, because there are two versions of it and only one is the real problem. What I am NOT talking about the spiritual indifferentism proposed by St Ignatius of Loyola. In that version, it doesn't matter whether one is poor or rich, or young or old or healthy or sick: what matters is you're living the same Christian life regardless of your circumstances. That's NOT what causes the problem. Here's what does cause the problem:
We've all heard the notion "all religions are the same." Well, that in essence is the bad kind of  indifferentism. The modern indifference promotor says this, but what they really mean is they believe all religious are equally stupid. They may not flat out say that, but that's what their actions and attitudes come down to.
Why is this so dangerous? I know I mentioned this briefly in a previous post, but it bears repeating here:
what if this notion was applied to other things?
"My job is to promote Ford cars, but I don't care if you buy a Nissan. All cares are the same anyway."
"I would like to have a boy, but I don't care if I have a girl. All genders are the same anyway."

#2: Syncretism
This notion is like universalism and indifferentism, but takes things one step further….if all religious are the same and are equally valid, then we shouldn't have any problems mixing belief systems. I decided to put this one higher and separate from the other two because you don't have to openly promote either indifferentism or universalism to wind up promoting syncretism.
What does the modern syncretist say? They will either say something like "We should say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas" or if it isn't December, they will promote a holiday you've never heard of, they've never heard of until a few moments ago, and yet they want to celebrate it all in the name of "tolerance." Another annoying habit of the modern syncretist is to take an old symbol and twist it around to mean something else that has nothing to do with its original meaning…such as people using Guy Fawkes masks.
Why is this so dangerous? Much like not looking to a belief system to see whether or not it makes sense in and of itself, one further blurs fact by mixing different and often contrary beliefs together. It's as if they want to be theological, but dirt-poor Texas sharpshooters by hitting random shots on a barn door then painting the bull's eye after the fact.

And the number one heretical teaching infecting today's world is….

Yeah, faithful people saw this one coming. Considered by many lay-people and at least one declared saint as the "mother of all heresies," modernism is both difficult to define yet easy to site examples of it.
For a link to modernism's definition, click here.
What about examples of it?
-whenever someone says miracles aren't possible because science can explain them, that's modernism.
-when people say the laws we have ONLY came about through mutual consensus, that's modernism.
-when someone says people's vision of marriage is too out-dated, that's modernism.

And the big one:
-whenever someone says "the Catholic Church needs to get with the times", that's REALLY modernism.

(Side note: you know who actually says "the Catholic Church needs to get with the times"? Every single FAILED civilization in the past 2000 years.)

Lest you think things couldn't get any worse for what or who offends the Sacred Heart, trust me: the last group does far, FAR worse damage than heretics and unfaithful Jews put together.

Who is this last group? Check back later this week to find out!!!

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Who Injures the Sacred Heart? (Part 2.1)



Last Friday, I wrote about the teachings of the Sacred Heart, where it came from, and why you often see Catholics go to Mass the first Friday of every month. In addition, I went into one of the groups that greatly injure the Sacred Heart, so this post I'm going into the second group:


I wondered how to best present heretics and what they say, but the more I looked into heretical thought, the more I realized how prevalent heresy is and how often we hear them without even realizing it.

So, with that in mind, we're going to look at a total of 12 heretical teachings, six now and six a little later. Here are the first 6heretical teachings prevalent in society today, what each says, what the modern promoter of it says, and why it's so dangerous.

#12: Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons
These two are at the bottom because one can choose whether or not they want to be members of their "church"; however, I have never seen any other universal agreement between Catholics and non-Catholics concerning a condemnation of groups. There is no pastor or priest or anyone familiar with Christian teachings that will say a JW or a Mormon is a real Christian; I mean that not in how they act but rather what their "church" teaches.
I won't go into every single teaching so instead I'll point out one teaching from each that disqualifies them as real Christians:
JW's believe Jesus is actually the archangel Michael.
Mormons believe that if they are good enough in this life, they can become gods in the next life; they even have a saying: "as man is, God once was. As God is, man can become."

They can deny it all they want, but they have published works with their own seal of approval that shows this is what they actually believe.

(Trust me: I'm doing a list of what the strangest beliefs of Mormonism are just in time for their Pioneer Day,  July 24th.)

But why are such teachings dangerous? Because they show you can make things up, lie about it, know it's a lie, but promote it as fact anyway.

#11: Feeneyism 
Named after a Jesuit priest named Leonard Edward Feeney, Feeneyism takes the valid Catholic teaching extra Ecclesiam null salus ("outside the church there is no salvation) and takes it to extremes by stating non-Catholics by the simple fact they're non-Catholics are automatically damned.
Why is this dangerous? Because it takes the notion of damnation and leaves it up to individuals to decide who is damned. Contrary to what some people think, not even the Catholic Church has ever declared someone is in hell.
What does today's Feeneyist says? "I decide for myself who goes to hell."

10. Manichaeism
This teaches that good and evil are equally powerful and that material things are evil. I know that sounds contrary, because it is. The notion is self-defeating: you can't say in one breath that good and evil are equally powerful then say in the next breath material things are evil without saying the non-material is either good or evil.
And that's what makes it so dangerous: it blurs the line between good and evil while at the same time making no distinction in either moral neutrality or material/spiritual matters.
What does the modern Manichaeism promoter say? Anything related to the prosperity gospel.

9. Marcionism
This teaches that God as expressed in the OT is a different and lesser entity than the God in the NT.
Now, Christians today would most likely hear this and scratch their heads trying to understand it, but back when it was first proposed, its namesake Marcion of Sinope argued that what he called the "vengeful and tyrannical" God of the OT cannot be reconciled with Jesus' teachings and thus cannot be the true God.
(Sidenote: calling God in the OT "vengeful and tyrannical"….sound familiar?)
Why is this such a dangerous idea? Besides the fact Marcionism also has roots in mystic, dualistic pseudo-theology, it suggests that the OT shouldn't even be used for much of anything in trying to understand God.
What does the modern Marcionist say? "God shouldn't be worshiped since God promotes slavery in the OT."

8. Pelagianism
 Pelagianism teaches original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. I think the problem with this is pretty obvious: every single time a person, or a society has tried to come up with right and wrong by themselves without God, it has always failed… exceptions.
What does the modern Pelagianist say? "I can be good without God."

#7: Gallicanism/Americanism
I decided to put these two together because they are two sides of the same heretical coin. Gallicanism teaches that civil authority--be it president or monarch--is on the same tier as the Pope; Americanism says among other things that there must be a strict separation of church and state.
Why are these ideas so dangerous? In the first, you're saying the government has as much authority to decide right and wrong as a church does; in the second, it says out of all the basis for morality people can use, religion must not be used at any point.
Today, whenever someone thinks a solution should come first and foremost from the government or when someone says there's a wall of separation of church and state, they're touting one of these two.

Stay tuned in for the next six…the six most prevalent heresies out there!!!

Monday, June 9, 2014

The Roots of Homosexuality as I understand it



With homosexuality, we come to the issue's root: what causes homosexuality? In all fairness, I don't know the answer to that question, but to be fair, so far no one knows the answer to that question flat out. But we can figure out the question by eliminating what the answer can't be. However, before we do that, we must look at what the possible answers are:

Option 1: It's genetic (or they're "born that way.")
Option 2: It's a matter of environment; another way of saying it is it's nurture.
Option 3: It's a personal choice.

According to a recent poll, the number of Americans who think people are born gay has gone up from 13% to 47%. However, the number of people who believe something doesn't mean the belief is correct (unless we're talking about the Catholic faith, in which case it's the other way around). So how do we test the first statement?
There are three ways to do this: either by identical twin studies, genetic studies or brain exams.

For identical twins, their genetic code is exactly the same, so if it were inborn (or if they were "born that way") then they should either both be straight or both be gay. However, there have been enough instances where one twin is straight and the other gay to show genetics can't be the reason.

So since two people with the same genetics doesn't show a connection, what about one person with one set of genetics? Again, no connection: that would imply there is such a thing as a gay gene but so far no scientists have been able to find one.

So born that way? 100% busted.

Next up we have environment. Now, I've come across evidence that suggests most gay people don't have a good relationship with their dads, but I personally don't buy that because you're saying people who grow up without their dads are going to grow up gay. Come to think of it, the environment argument in general doesn't work because you're saying either one circumstance or a combination of circumstances triggers homosexuality.

So environment is 100% busted.

That then leaves us with saying it's just a choice, but whoa onto those who do call it a choice, right?
Consider for a moment the ramifications if it turns out it is just a choice: that would then mean you can convince people to make a different choice or perhaps have them rethink their current position, but given the direction gay-rights advocates operate, when have they ever been willing to rethink their position on much of anything? Also, if it is a choice, then there is no reason or legal justification for overturning gay marriage bans because it then becomes a ban on a choice we as a society do not approve of.
Besides, we have dozens of cases of people who were once gay but now live heterosexual lives.

In conclusion then, until overwhelming evidence is given to the contrary, I'm going to say being gay is just a choice.

And no one better try any of that "I tried to be straight but it didn't work so it can't be a choice" nonsense. I bet there are far more people who tried to be gay but it turned out they were actually straight, which would put us at square one.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Anti-atheist meme #12


Friday, June 6, 2014

Who Injures the Sacred Heart? (Part 1)



Today marks the first Friday in June, the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
For those who don't know or were never taught the origins of such an iconic Catholic symbol, allow me to give a brief history:

The first recorded use of the devotion came from St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Francis of Assisi, both of whom derived the practice out of devotions to Christ's wounds suffered during the Passion. However, the practice as it is understood today began in a series of visions experienced by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque. Part of the devotion involves taking Communion on the first Friday of each month for nine straight months; this is why you often see Catholics attend Mass the first of every month.

This much is well known, but what is not as well known is three particular groups of people that Jesus said to St Alacoque that greatly offend the Sacred Heart. In fact, in the official book on this subject--written by Alacoque's personal spiritual director St. Claude de la Colombière--she flat out says in plain language who these three groups are and why they offend the Sacred Heart so much. 

Each Friday this month (except for June 27th, which is the Feast of the Sacred Heart) I'll be focusing on each of these groups. Let's start off of who the first group is:

The Jews

Now, before anyone writes or accuses me of being a Nazi or a racist or some other garbage like that, let's make one point absolutely clear:
There are two ways to speak of Jews: either by ethnicity or by the Jewish faith. I am not talking about nor do I concern myself with one's ethnicity. I'm multiracial myself and even if I wasn't, the NT makes it clear one's race is not a factor when it comes to salvation.  Besides, there are groups for ethnic Jews who believe the prophecies concerning the Messiah do refer to Jesus, so I am not talking about Jew the ethnicity.

What I (as well as Jesus through St Alacoque)  am talking about are the torments Jesus suffered at the hands of His fellow Jews. 
Again, I must clarify that this has nothing to do with the so-called "blood libel" but consider for a moment what the Jews did before the Incarnation: 
-they were the first to learn about the one true God
-they were the first to learn about the prophecies concerning the Messiah
-they were the first to have the covenant with God
-they were the first to have a priesthood and offer sacrifices to God

And what did they do with all this? Squandered it time and again. I don't have to go into each various verse; the faithless recorded in the OT is well documented. 
Now, some will say "those verses are only meant to be a metaphor for anyone who falls from the faith and not just Jews by themselves." 
First of all, up until a certain century, Gentiles did not know about Jewish writings. Second, one OT prophet said the word will be extended to the Gentiles; it must not have been extended to them at that point otherwise the statement wouldn't make any sense. Third, how do you explain all these indignities Jesus suffered during His life?
-being denied lodging shortly before birth
-having someone out to kill Him shortly after He was born, causing Him to flee to another country
-getting dragged like a criminal to His trial
-a criminal was preferred over Him
-was whipped half to death, spat upon, mocked, and denounced all during His Passion

All of these were either directly caused by faithless Jews or indirectly caused by their lack of faith. 

Lest you think I'm going on an anti-Semitic rant, consider what faithful Jews did after His Incarnation:
-a Jewish man and a Jewish woman agreed to raise Jesus
-all the Apostles were raised Jewish
-Jews wrote the majority of the NT
-most of the early converts to Christianity were Jews

That last observation is the whole point: as long as Jews (or anyone, for that matter) keep offending the Sacred Heart by not entering into the Church the foretold Messiah established, they cannot achieve salvation. 
And no, Jews cannot achieve salvation by continuing the practices laid out in the OT while Christians follow the NT; that's duel covenant theology and that has been dismissed long ago.

If it sounds like Jesus is being harsh to His fellow Jews, keep in mind this is the nicest part of the visions. Next Friday, we'll have a group that Jesus has even harsher words for.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

The Myth of Gay Activist Tolerance


 (Update: Since this initial broadcast, Peter Labarbera did enter Canada eventually, but was first denied entry by customs officials for potential violation of their hate speech laws. It took an appeal to Canadian Border Services Agency and 24 hours before he was finally released. 
Four days latter, he and another man were arrested on the University of Regina campus after distributing what the campus administrators considered "hate speech."
Two days later, Labarbera cancelled a scheduled appearance and decided to go back to the U.S.)

I don't know what's the most sickening part of all this: the fact that no one could be bothered to look at an opposing viewpoint, the fact that officials at a university are so dyed-in-the-wool politically correct they just can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with them, or the fact government officials are so afraid someone might be offended they detain a potential offender just as he enters the country.

There is no excuse for this: this is homofacism, plain and simple---the sodomy bastard child of atheism.

What is homofacism? Tune in tomorrow to find out.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

So We're Letting Kids Make "Those" Type of Decisions Now


The Angel Possenti:

While I was listening to this story, many questions swirled in my head…a good amount are questions that pop in your head right away but others form in the back…the type you don't think about in a conscious manner but they gnaw at your head all the same.

1. Since when do we let seven year-olds suddenly decide what gender they want to be? We don't let them think ice cream is better for you than vegetables but let's be honest: that's not a life changing decision but what gender you are is.

2. Does the doctor they interview seem to imply if your child wants to be the other gender, then parents should just go with it?

3. While the doctor interviewed is a medical doctor, he is not a licensed psychiatrist. So since he is not a psychiatrist, what weight does his opinion have?

4. While I do give them credit by admitting a true transgender case in someone that age is rare, wouldn't it have been a good idea to cite the DSM-V to see if parents do have an authentic case or at least steer people in the right direction?

5. Why do I get the feeling that people who are in favor of what the parents decided are going to come after me by saying how dare I suggest the parents impose their beliefs on their kid?

6. What about the child's sexuality? Yes, I understand the child is too young to know about that too, but has anyone stopped to think how the girl will understand herself later?

7. Speaking of sexuality, what about puberty? Sooner or later, it's going to be pretty obvious she's a girl and not a boy.

8.  How sure are the parents on knowing this is what their daughter wants? Could it be this is nothing more than a child loving one ice cream flavor now but liking another one later?

9. Isn't it pretty obvious the child is controlling them and not the other way around?

10. Would it surprise anyone if this family turned out to be atheists and this is nothing more than typical atheist stupidity?

Monday, June 2, 2014

Gay-Marriage Bakery "Logic"


DENVER - The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.
Phillips said he doesn't believe in gay marriage and he refused to sell them a cake.
"We would close down the bakery before we would complicate our beliefs," Phillips said after the hearing, according to CBS Denver. Phillips also admitted he had refused service to other same-sex couples.
A judge previously ruled a business owner cannot refuse service to a customer on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips appealed to the commission, but it upheld the decision.
That prompted Phillips to decide he would no longer make any wedding cakes. He said he would be fine selling cupcakes for a birthday party for someone who is gay but added, "I don't want to participate in a same-sex wedding."

For the couple, they said they always believed they were in the right and it was important to pursue the case for future customers. "We've already been discriminated there," Mullins said. "We've already been treated badly.The commission also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone.
"The next time a gay couple wanders in there asking for a wedding cake, they won't have the experience we had.
"They will have a responsible experience and leave feeling respected."
(Here's the link.)

The Angel Possenti:

So let me get this straight:

A gay couple goes to a baker to get a cake to commemorate their "wedding", he says no, says it violates his Christian principles, and instead of doing the reasonable thing (like go hire a different baker) they go whine to a "civil rights" group, he gets slapped with a fine, he still refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, the court forces him to bake cakes for gay couples against his principles and he decides to no longer bake wedding cakes for anybody.

You want to know what the real icing on the cake (so to speak) is in all of this?

The entire sequence of events took place in Colorado, and gay marriage isn't even legal in Colorado.

No surprise: atheists support all of this suing nonsense, and atheists are idiots.