Chef Duff Goldman tells same-sex couple he'll bake cake for free
Duff Goldman, the executive chef of Ace of Cakes, has a message for the same-sex couple denied a wedding cake from a Gresham bakery: He’ll make it for free.
“I saw this story and I thought, ‘Hey, I can do something,’” Goldman said in a video interview Monday with the Huffington Post. “I will make the cake for free, drive it up to Portland just to right this wrong.”
The famous pastry chef’s response came after the story of a Gresham bakery owner refusing to make the cake for couple made national news. The story, first reported by KATU, was picked up by the Huffington Post and is currently the most popular article on its website, based on 5,000 shares.
Goldman, whose bakery is based out of Baltimore, said he prepares a lot of wedding cakes for same-sex couples and was surprised by the local baker’s actions. He described the baker’s response as “blatant.”
Aaron Klein, the owner of Sweet Cakes, told KATU on air that he told the woman last month that he couldn’t make her wedding cake because of his religious beliefs.
The woman told KATU that he called her and her partner “abominations to the Lord;" Klein denied making that statement.
The Oregon Attorney General's Office is investigating whether Klein violated the state's Equality Act in denying service.
Good for Mr.Goldman for doing the right thing. Says a lot when a baker 1000+ miles away is willing to make a cake and a local company won't.
Trying to argue morality and biblical principle in a political arena is crazy-making. Christians are to remain politically neutral. We are to respect the authority of land in which we reside, unless that authority asks us to usurp God's law. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Â
I support anyone who stands up for their conscience - AND if the baker used bad language and name calling, that is not standing behind his religious convictions. I cannot speak on the legality of simply refusing a wedding cake to this same sex couple, as I know several restaurants that post signs stating that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, so I am not sure how that would apply here.
Â
Bottom line is I am sure everyone on both sides of this debate can agree, that both parties should be treated with dignity and respect, while standing up for their beliefs. As to whether or not gays/lesbians have equal rights, that falls to the political aspect and as a Christian that remains neutral, that is for the voters to deal with, and I am responsible for showing love and consideration to everyone, no matter their sexual preference.
Â
If this article spoke on the morality of homosexuality, adultery, drunkenness, idolatry, and any of the other behaviors that are included in the particular scriptures that Christians are referring to, to base their convictions on, then I would have more to say. But it does not, these articles are commenting on the law, if he broke the law, he should be punished. If the law conflicts with his religious conscience to make a cake for a same-sex couple, then he should evaluate his profession and what the laws to protect his freedom of religion are, while treating these women and anyone else who lives a lifestyle that he believes to be in contradiction to the scriptures with dignity and respect. Â
For everyone who is screaming homosexuality is genetic: science has yet to prove your claim. Unless science actually finds a gene that controls sexual preference, your belief that homosexuality is not a choce is just that - a
belief.
Â
Those of us who hold to the Biblical view of homosexuality have been vilified. We have been called haters, bigots, racists, etc., simply because we do not agree with those who believe homosexuality is genetic. The "tolerance" the other side of the table is screaming for is not shown to those who oppose them. I have posted on another thread that I recognize that I am human and, therefore, could be wrong. I have seen no such admission from the other side in this debate. I have also stated that if science proves me wrong (and the criteria for that prove will remain between God and me so I can be at least reasonably sure it is not propaganda designed to deceive), I will fight just as hard FOR same-sex marriage as I am fighting against it now.
Â
I have always tried to be respectful of homosexuals in my posts by simply referring to them as homosexuals. I have not used terms like "sicko", "pervert", etc. I have only stated my belief in the Bible's view of homosexuality and, when necessary, quoted Scriptures to explain why I have those views. In return, I get words like "hater", "bigot", etc. I have even been accused of not supporting American ideals of equality, justice, etc. Yep, it's that attitude that will eventually strip Christians of their rights, ending with Chrisitans being imprisoned and executed. That is NOT meant as a jab at the other side - it's simply how I am seeing things.
Â
Ok - rant done (at least for now). This subject really has me worked up and I felt the need to get this off my chest.
 @theprodigal the absence of proof is not absence of proof
Â
@theprodigal You are not being vilified for having a different opinion about the genetic factor.I'm not even convinced if genitics plays a role either.I do find it offensive that you think that you can actually crawl into the mind of a gay person and declare as *fact* that its a choice.Unfortunately you are a pompous Christian for insisting that your beliefs are indeed true and you go on further to declare a loving relationship to me immoral.Your whining ad naueseum about being a poor poor persecuted Christian is getting really old and tired.After all you Christians at one point here in Oregon tried to pass a law that would allow gay tenants to be evicted and fired from their jobs.I don't doubt for a second that you would be in full favor of stripping gays of all legal protections just because you believe the homosexuality is the top of your sin list.I personally find Christians as yourself to be despicable and evil.
 @theprodigalÂ
You have all the right in the world to practice your religion in your private life. Â But the very instant you try to push that practice onto any citizen who does not share your faith, you have violated our First Amendment right to freedom from religion. Â Furthermore, this hypocrisy from a Christian, this perversion of Jesus Christ's teachings, it's offensive and flat wrong. Â You're supposed to be as much like Christ as humanly possible, and yet you much more resemble the Pharisees than you do the savior.
Â
What would Jesus have done in this situation? Â I think we both know the answer to this one. Â He would have baked the damn cake.
@theprodigal....oh, so if science proves that "claim" then you'll embrace homosexuals as equals who are entitled to the same protections, rights, privileges that we all should enjoy?
Â
yeah right....you'll be screaming that scientists have it wrong, just like evolution.
@theprodigal I think I also need to address your thoughts in regards to the view that christians are being stripped of their rights.
Â
Do you feel that disparaging and segregating gays is a christian right? The ability to treat this subsection of our society with each and every chance you can as seperate and worthy of your scorn and debasement?
Â
Is this the right you are fighting for? The ability to treat gays in this manner? You are certainly not treating other sinners like this.
Â
You have the freedom to do whatever you please in regards to your religion. Yet the one thing you appear to stand up for is the ability to intimidate and bully the gay population. And I am getting from your post that you believe this is a right that you have as a christian? To treat these people in this manner and if you cannot, suddenly, it is "stripping christians of their rights!".
Â
Let's be clear about this - you want the right to treat gay people specifically like this. And if you cannot, you feel it is "stripping christians of their rights".
Â
Is this true?
@theprodigal Religion is a choice, you choose to follow yet you are protected by law. Even if you believe that homosexuality is a choice, it is still protected by that same law. Therefore, I have avoided the choice/born that way debate on this topic (to be up front about it I believe they were borth that way). It's real easy to see oneself as a member of a class that is discriminated against. Christianity even has the martyr factor built into it. Are homosexuals also sensitive to discrimination against them? Of course, but this time they were discriminated against. Even if you donât feel it was illegal, they were denied something that others can obtain. Christians are not being denied anything here that has not also been denied to everyone, they aren't being singled out. Everyone, from Athiests to Zoroastrians the application of this law is the same. Christians make up close to 80% of this nation. Heck, a common argument put forth is that we were a nation founded on Christian principles, that canât happen without Christianity dominating. Weâre not the victims here, we are not being discriminated against because of our faith.
@JTesla To answer your question: "Are homosexuals also sensitive to discrimination against them?"
Â
The answer is yes.
Â
I cannot tell you that a day does not go by where I am not confronted by christian values in my face tell me: 1) I am a sinner and 2) that I am going to hell.
Â
In the mean time, I see self righteous christians parading all around our media. Print, TV, and online spewing their harted of gay people. It is not exclusive though - I do see some christians preaching love and acceptance of all sinners and I am intelligent enough to understand that there are good and bad in all demographics. But it does wear on you and it does harded you towards any message they preach.
Â
I also have personal experience to guide me. I have been gay since grade school. I knew quite early what I was attracted to. In high school, I spent my last two years attending funerals of friends that died to AIDs. Kids my age - under 18 - that were abandoned by their christian families simply because they were gay. They were brought into this world through love, and they were abandoned due to self righteous parents that had zero understanding what being gay was and were embarassed that their children were "one fo those" people. They were more concerned with what others thought about them that the kids that were their own flesh and blood. These kids had nowhere to go and a few of them stayed with my family. But the kids that caught AIDs were disowned by their families and spent their last days in hospices surrounded by people like me - unrelated gay kids that were the only family they had. They died with as much dignity and respect as we could give them, nevermind their christian families rejecting them.
Â
This happened before I was 18. I lost many friends due to AIDs and christians did not care whatsoever.
Â
Meanwhile, televangelists like Robertson, Falwell and others were dancing on TV celebrating that AIDs was killing gays. They reveled in joy that they felt god had sent a plague to wipe out the gays. They thought it was divine justice that gays were dying and because we only represented maybe 3% of the know population that it was not enough to warrant federal assistance into the disease. They sat by and in judgement took joy that their children were being killed.
Â
I have been spit upon, physically beaten up, scorned, ridiculed, denied promotions, and denied service due to being gay. All at the hands of religious people whom feel it is their bound duty to hold a book in their hand and execute divine justice on me. That is was their "right" to treat me so and that their book gave them this right.
Â
If you feel this is a choice, let me ask you - why would I put up with this when I could easily find some woman to take pity on me and marry me? Why would I face social stereotypes and endure this treatment from christians if this was a choice?
Â
@Gayman I too lived those early days of the plague.Caring for and burying my friends left and right.Only to be vilified with vitriol and right down cruelty from the religous right.I discovered first hand how inhumane and right down nasty Christians like theprodical are capable of being.The fact that they feel that their beliefs is justification to treat other humans in such a way makes my blood boil...On a side note (its on streaming Netflix) Documentary How to survive a plague is a must see.If it wasn't for the early days of ACT UP,I think that millions more gay men would have suffered and died of AIDS.
 @Gayman  @JTesla Your experiences sound very painful. No one should have to endure what you have described here, regardless of religious preference, sexual preference, etc.Â
Â
You are very accurate, there is a lot of hypocrisy in religion. That, to me, is the crux of the matter. If a Christian were to really let the bible do the guiding on their actions - none of what you described here would have happened.
Â
The  bible is very clear that pestilence is NOT a punishment from God. AIDS is NOT a punishment, just like Katrina was NOT sent from God to punish New Orleans. It is so sad to hear experiences of people who have been lied to and told that God would be so unloving as to hurt you that way.Â
@theprodigal Religious views are chosen. They are not genetic. Maybe one could see it as you have chosen a faith that discriminates against other people. That is your religious lifestyle and you are using it do discriminate against another demographic.
Â
I would not mind your views if you were to apply them equally across all demographics. Unfortunately, you do not. You sell to idolaters, adulterers, gluttons, murderers, rapists, and a whole subets of sinners. For you to specifically, and on a continual basis, choose ONLY to segregate LGBT people shows me that you indeed are not following your "religious belief", but you are discriminating against one subset of the sinning population.
Â
In a word: hypocrisy.
Â
You have chosen to focus on one and not any other. One verse in an entire chapter of verses to highlight and use as a weapon to deny people equal rights like each and every other taxpaying American. To segregate out of that book a subset of people with which you choose to judge, and execute your judgement based on your interpretation of that book.
Â
Make no mistake - the christian in this story is the aggressor. They used their chosen religious belief to deny public accomodation. The christian here, cake boy, chose to make this an issue and to hide behind his religious belief to execute bad behavior towards people he did not even know.
Â
As I have said before - the baker needs to apologise to the women and they need to apologise to the baker. THAT is the christian thing to do. Getting lawyered up on both sides is not the answer to this.
Â
Christians and gays CAN live together. But at this point, it is the christians that are being aggressive agaisnt the gays and it is the gays that continually are reminding the christians about our civil laws.
Â
I find this incredibly distateful and sad that a christian, which is bound to treat and accomodate strangers by jesus himself, completely ignores this and cherry picks a verse in the bible to treat other humans in this manner.
@Gayman Allow me to remind you, Gayman, that Aaron did NOT say homosexuals were not welcome to shop in the bakery. He simply refused to to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. I think he and I share the same view: making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would be endorsing an immoral act. I am NOT equating being homosexual with murder but here is the best thing I can think of to illustrate my point: if you were to come to me to buy a gun and I knew beforehand that you were going to use that gun to commit murder and I sold it to you, I would would be charged with "Accessory to Murder" (I believe that is the legal term). Can you at least see now why Aaron refused to bake the cake?
 @Gayman You have an excellent point about whether he provides cakes for heterosexuals that are sleeping together before their marriage or not, that would truly be being consistent straight across the board.
Â
Although, I feel compelled to clarify, a second wedding for a heterosexual is not immoral from the bible stand point, UNLESS the divorce from the first marriage was unlawful from God's standpoint, namely fornication wan't the reason for the divorce. If I were married and my husband cheated on me, then divorced me, my second marriage would be completely moral in God's eyes.(from the bible's stand point anyways) I point this out because your reason is sound, I just wouldn't want that sound reason to be lost in a misunderstanding.Â
@theprodigal Making a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple on their second marriage is also endorsing an immoral act according to the bible.
Â
Does he ask if this is a second or third marriage? Does he ask if the woman is a virgin?
Â
My point is, you either abide by ALL of the bible, or none of it. Focusing ONLY on gay cientele to pull out the "that is against my religious beliefs" card is quite hypocritical.
Â
If I use your "accessory" logic, Aaron is already guilty many times over due to the number of heterosexual christians violating god's law through serial marriages.
Â
Again - just focusing on the gay is the issue here. If you are going to use the religion card, you need to use it on more than just gay clientele. If not, then you truly are discriminating.
gays are aloud to get  married in oregon now and also that baker in baltimore in my eyes is a damn saint  portland bakers are flipping stupid but whats even funnier about it is that most of portland is nothing but gays and trannies  and so that is the stupidest thing ever and btw for the people who think gays are an abomination your wrong us normal people sin more than they do
@alicia "gays are aloud to get married in oregon now . . ."Â Um, same-sex marriage has NOT been legalized in Oregon.
Yet...
At any rate, we have 2 years to see what happens.
 @lee986321 You realize the "2 years" thing is not official. That was kind of made up here in the comments. It could take 6 months, it could take 4 years depending on how much it is pushed.
I think the biggest threat with the gays is the Constitutional rights of Marreid people VS Homosexuals and it is because of this they are angry.
In Oregon you have to be male and female to get a REAL marriage license.
 @lee986321 @JTesla @Gayman I love it when I see anyone use the term, "the gays"....although mostly I hear it from comedians on TV.  Do you have your own show?  ComedyCentral?
Am I angry lee? I live in WA and will be married this summer to the man I have been a partner with for 18 years. Is that a REAL marriage license or is the state going to make a FAKE one for me?
 @lee986321 But you don't need to be male and female to have a wedding. It's just that you won't be issued a marriage license.
from what I also gather the complaint was filed by the lesbian not present at time of discussion, this could lead to complications in the case. For one if she was not present, then how could she file a complaint.. and further more the mother returned and Harassed Klien.
http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/2013/01/oregon-ag-investigates-christian-bakery-for-refusing-to-bake-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/
 @lee986321 Oh yes, "thoughts from a conservative mom.com" is a great unbiased resource. Why bother to dispute that journalism? You have a lot of shady resources for information.
 @lee986321 I don't care how much you know or think you know. How much you copy and paste articles. In my opinion you are a worthless idiot for saying " Gays simply will not have the rights as us regular folk". Â
Â
 @Morticae Your life style is artificial, if it were not for certain things in place, like adoption, you would not be able to perpetuate your life style. Nature forbids it and it has a kill switch. People just work around this "Kill Switch" But keep trying to fed a lie..maybe some day some one will believe it.
Â
Not to be abusive or intrusive, but what would happen if we took all the gays, and placed them in an area where they have no access to being able to adopt or other wise populate..lets say 4 gay people are stranded on an island. 2 men 2 women. the island is 54 miles long by 32 miles wide. has terrain that is 2,000 to 3000 feet above sea level..what would happen:? what would nature do? would they eventually breed male to female, or would they die? leaving the island only populated with the skeletons of there corpses.
Â
So, you tell me...what choices do we humans really have?
Now suppose, 1 woman and one man survive..but they want a child...Nature kicks in..And this leads me to the second question..why must homosexuals seek artificial means of reproduction and or use a male or female to have a child..Homosexuality simply does not make sense in the natural world.It has no real functionality.
@Morticae
Genetics is our friend
The laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction, so letâs start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: âOne gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.â
Or we can look at the female side of the picture: You can go back maybe 10 generations and assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate what would happen. Even a slight difference would cause a homosexual gene to rapidly fade from the population. On the other hand, if the fertility rates were the same, how could women be considered lesbians if they were having the same amount of heterosexual sex to produce an equivalent number of children? Even if a tendency toward homosexuality were genetic, every time that gene expressed itself, it would fall out of the gene pool. Ask any genetics teacher, âCould homosexuality be genetic if there is no mechanism for gays to pass their genes on to children as frequently as straights pass genes on to their children?â While you are at it, propose any percentage of gays in the starting population and any fertility rates for gays and straights, and ask for the mathematical calculations of how rapidly a homosexual gene would die out.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/why-you-cant-be-born-gay/#sIEIL7bseRJPmysq.99
 @lee986321  @Morticae A little bit more current research performed locally with sheep.  And don't start in, lee, I know humans aren't sheep, but research continues and it's looking an awful lot like homosexuality in humans is a biological thing (which scientists are actively working to discover the hows/whys) rather than a lifestyle choice.  http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/about/news_events/news/2004/03-05-biology-behind-homosexua.cfm
 @Morticae http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/pierce/gaygene.htm
@Morticae
The year 1995 marked beginning of the end of optimism for chromosome Xq28 as an indicator of male homosexuality. In this year Scientific American printed an article that mentioned the doubts in the scientific community over the genetics of homosexuality. LeVayâs findings, the article reports, âhave yet to be fully replicated by another researcherâ (Horgan, 1995). Also, one study contradicted Hamerâs results and Scientific American reported that he had âbeen charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity,â which was basically a result of his excluding âpairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his findingâ (Horgan, 1995). This news report came in the November edition of the magazine, which was essentially presenting a retraction for the article the two scientists coauthored in 1994. Unfortunately for these two researchers, more bad news was to follow.
Science also reported that the study by Hamer was being questioned. A study by George Ebers and George Rice in 1995 indicated that âthere is no reason to focus linkage studies on the X chromosomeâ and that there is âno evidence that gayness is passed from mother to sonâ (Marshall, 1995). Although these researchers agreed with the possibility that homosexuality is inherited, they found no clear evidence to justify Hamerâs claims.
Finally, in 1999, George Rice and George Ebers published their data. In the April edition of Science, the scientists show that their results, âdo not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexualityâ (Rice et al., 1999 and Wickelgren, 1999). They found that the gay brothers looked at by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. This officially sounded the death-knell for the optimism held by Hamer et al. and others looking in this region for the gene leading to homosexuality.
When the 1993 Science article was written, a precursory âResearch Newsâ article was written by Robert Pool in the same magazine to report the findings of the Hamer group. In this article, Pool writes, âThe field of behavioral genetics is littered with apparent discoveries that were later called into question or retractedâ (Pool, 1993). A statement could not be more prophetic.
 @Morticae Define shady...I can say the same for you but you don't seem to grasp the idea and concept that gays simply will not have the rights as us regular folk..and the science one , that was unbiased..so ..go figure...If you got issues with the truth..that is your problem not mine.
Whether one agrees or does not agree, it's a very personal thing. We are not in this world to live up to everyone's expectations. If you are a hypocrite or a very strong religious, we all have rights to believe what we believe. What I find absolutely fascinating is that we know the name of the bakery but we are not allowed to know the name of the women who filed the complaint. If they indeed filed a complaint, wouldn't that become public knowledge so that we could learn their names? Why are they allowed to finger point but the bakery cannot finger point back in their specific direction? They are allowed to complain, which we all have a right to do, but in complaining, where are your faces?? If you are so proud of your sexual orientation, then show your face!!
 @pdxkath because there probably a militant group and don't want to be identified...I suppose.. one can contact wiki leaks and get info that way...
Why is KATU's picture not matching the subject, Chef Duff Goldman, and instead uses a picture of some guy from Craft Warehouse wearing a Vans shirt from the 80's?
 @Benjamin Schniffle they do not have permission to use his picture.
 @Benjamin Schniffle it maybe a conflict of contract... not sure.
 @lee986321  @Benjamin Schniffle That's the baker...
But is it? If the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science then why do so many activists still insist that individuals are born gay and cannot change? LeVay provided the answer. He notes " . . . people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights."
  This is not to say that anyone chooses homosexual attractions nor do most of us choose many of the other challenges we face in life, but we do choose how we respond.   ---   David Clarke Pruden is the executive director of Evergreen International, a nonprofit Latter-Day Saint organization that provides resources and educational services for same-sex attracted members.
If this is a personal decision then what would happen if I were to choose not to serve straight people based on their sexual preferences based on my own personal decisions? Or what would happen if I chose not to serve people with dogs based on my personal preferences for cats? Would that be considered unlawful?Â
Â
As someone who owns a business, they cannot pick and choose who they serve based on their personal/religious preferences. That's discrimination, no matter what and that right there is what is wrong with this whole thing. Â Business is business and personal beliefs should never invade the work place.Â
 @Jenoun wouldn't bother me, I would go some where else.
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Selling a commodity is not the same as comissioning a work of art- even if that art is only a decorated cake, To take the case to the extreme (as so often on the wild internet of ours) I would fully expect a tattoo artist at Dragonfly to refuse to give me a "God Hates Fags" or a swasticka tattoo- and I wouldn't go crying to the government to force them to priovide that service.
 @Mark V ShaneyÂ
I'm going to take a wild guess that you have, in your entire life, never faced ACTUAL discrimination.
Â
And for the record, civil rights laws entitle citizens to equal treatment under the law, not to special privileges.  If a tattoo parlor has a policy of not taking on commissions for work that they find offensive, they can refuse the work.  They can't refuse to sell their service, however, if their stated reason for doing so is the patron's religion, sex, sexual orientation, nation of origin, age, or marriage status.
Â
Do you see the difference there? Â One is a thing (a tattoo they won't sell to ANYONE), the other is a personal trait of the patron (i.e., they will sell the product to everyone BUT that person).
 @lee986321  @Mark V ShaneyÂ
I really don't think I can have a conversation with you.  Your posts are really incomprehensible.  Sorry, but I just don't see the upside in wasting my time.
 @lee986321  @Diogenes  @Mark V Shaney English this time, please.
 @Diogenes  @Mark V Shaney there just angry because the constitution forbids them the right to marry ..Oh wait Discrimination Via constitution, that would mean...that in the past there were very few and that they are not a race nor special in any way..
 @Jenoun Webster Dictionary:  Discrimination = b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <e.g. racial discrimination>. Last time I checked with any authority on human beings a gay person is not a separate RACE or creed. They are making a lifestyle choice. Any business has the right to 'refuse service to anyone'. Please make a federal case out of this issue so we who still have sense of common decency can know best who we can financially support. Please make this another Chik-fil-a issue because we want a better idea of who to patron and who to avoid.Â
 @1911R1  @JenounÂ
Excuse me, but you apparently don't understand the notation "e.g." Â It doesn't denote exclusivity, as in, discrimination can only be racial in nature. Â It stands for EXEMPLI GRATIA, which is Latin for "for example." Â The fact that the law of which Mr. Klein ran afoul uses the term discrimination in reference to sexual orientation should probably have been a clue.
Â
Secondly, the law also forbids discrimination on the basis of religion and marriage status, two other conditions that are inarguably matters of choice and not genetics.
Â
Thirdly, scientific evidence has indicated a genetic component to homosexuality, most recently with the discovery that the trait is passed epigenetically from the opposite sex parent. Â But even if LGBT citizens weren't born that way, they are still Americans who should enjoy the egalitarian impulse best summed up by Thomas Jefferson when he said, "If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, what is it to me?"
Â
I think we should all live like that.
 @Sundowner  @Morticae  @Diogenes  @1911R1  @Jenoun Oh I provided links just not on this post..rather you like or dislike that is your problem not mine.
 @lee986321  @Morticae  @Diogenes  @1911R1  @Jenoun Sorry, gotta do it -- no link, then you're making it up.
 @Morticae  @Diogenes  @1911R1  @Jenounyeah, just as I thought... you have to resort to name calling and put downs....Give me a break...Oh and on a personal note, have you ever built a fuel Cell?
 @Morticae  @Diogenes  @1911R1  @Jenoun Nice try, Iknow a millitant gay when I see one, and you are one. You don't like the facts? to bad.. Science discredited the gay gene. I know that homosexuals hate it..but it is the truth...
 @lee986321  @Diogenes  @1911R1  @Jenoun You don't know the difference between a wedding and a marriage license, so I'm not sure you know that much when it comes to whether or not someone is born gay.
 @Diogenes  @1911R1  @Jenoun I do know from scientific studies that people are not born gay...it is a chosen path, it can be triggered by abuse that has occurred as a child an there is definitive proof on that.
 @1911R1  @Jenoun I agree, I think the owner should have the right to refuse to whomever. Even if that means me. Governmental intrusion is what it is.
 @TreeWizard  @1911R1  @Jenoun agreed, it is a choice of life style.