Christianity,  News

“Boycott Indiana” social-media mob closes Christian-owned pizza shop

I would have thought this was an April Fool’s joke if I hadn’t seen it on Rod Dreher’s site. But this is no joke.

A small town pizza shop owned by Christians in Indiana is having to close its doors because of threats from the #BoycottIndiana crowd. Why? You’re not going to believe this.

A local news station went trolling local businesses to see if any of them agreed with Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The reporters found the Memories Pizza shop and interviewed the owner and his daughter (see video above). The owner and his daughter said that they would serve anyone who came into their pizza shop—gay, straight, or otherwise.

They said, however, that they would not be able to participate in a gay wedding if they were ever asked. It was a hypothetical scenario that has never actually come up. After all, who asks a pizza shop to cater their wedding? Nevertheless, the store clerk speculated what they would do, and the news station reported it.

As a result of the report, the shop has received a flood of threatening calls and threats via social media. The response has been so severe that he owner has said that he doesn’t know if he’ll ever be able to open his doors again. Dana Loesch is reporting:

The Blaze is also reporting:

Crystal O’Connor, the co-owner of Memories Pizza in Indiana, says it may not be safe to re-open their pizzeria after they said they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.

“I don’t know if we will re-open, or if we can, if it’s safe to re-open,” O’Connor said on TheBlaze TV’s Dana. “We’re in hiding basically, staying in the house.”…

O’Connor said they have since received an endless flood of “bashing” comments on social media, and their Yelp page has been trashed. One reviewer wrote that they serve an “intolerance special with toppings of hate, bigotry, stupidity, and old fashioned beliefs.” And a high school coach from Goshen, Indiana has been suspended after urging people on Twitter to burn down their establishment.

“Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me? Agree with #FreedomofReligion bill? ‘That’s a lifestyle they CHOOSE’ Ignorant,” coach Jess Dooley wrote.

O’Connor said the media is distorting what her family truly believes. They are happy to serve gay customers, she reiterated, but object to being forced to participate in a gay wedding, since they don’t believe in gay marriage.

“We’re very hurt and confused and we stood up for what we believe,” she said. “The news just took it totally out of proportion. They lied about it. We said that we would serve anyone that walked in that door, even gays, but we would not condone a wedding. We would not cater that because it’s against our religious beliefs.”

Watch the video above. If you think this is the moral equivalent of Jim Crow racism, you have zero moral discernment. This is an establishment that is ready and willing to serve all-comers—including gay people! Yet for merely suggesting (hypothetically!) that they wouldn’t participate in a gay wedding, the mob is running them out of business.

I hope fellow citizens wake up to see what is unfolding before our very eyes. There is a lot of hatred going around, but it is not from the likes of the owners of this pizza shop.


  • Johnny Mason

    The Bull Connor in this situation is not this innocent family who did nothing. Look at both sides in this story and who is the one who most resemble the segregationists? What side looks like the Jim Crow bigots? What side most resembles the kristallnacht?

    • Chris Ryan

      The problem here is that a large segment of conservatives have opposed even common sense laws like the one Utah just passed with a push from the Mormon church. That law made it illegal to discriminate against gays while also carving out a very large conscience clause so that religious organizations weren’t forced to participate in gay weddings. It was a true win-win. But it was strongly opposed by many members of the SBC, including folks like Denny. Its as if we’re spoiling for a fight. When Christians oppose recognizing the civil rights of others we will lose, and deservedly so. History will not look kindly on us if this behavior continues…If we’re going to find a compromise that preserves a conscience clause then we need to come to the table with a meaningful solution, instead of putting our heads in the sand and just wishing gay people would go away…I’m not sure where this spirit to fight with the gays comes from, but its not the Bible. Christ didn’t fight sinners, he SAVED them.

      • Brian Holland

        I’m not familiar with the Utah law, so I’m not going to debate you on that, but on your on your larger point about Christ not fighting sinners, but saving them, the Gospel tells us that we are all sinners, and that we’ve violated God’s standards. The left doesn’t want there to be any standards when it comes to morality, which is why moral relativism rules the day now. “If it feels good, do it.” We are called to walk on the very narrow path and say there are absolute standards when it comes to morality, and again those of us who are Christians understand that we are without excuse, saved only by God’s grace and mercy, but that we are called to “go and sin no more.”

        With regards to “not fighting sinners” I think we do homosexuals no favors by not declaring what the Bible clearly says about homosexuality, especially if we claim to believe that there is a perfectly Holy, and just God who, according to His character, must judge sin. But we are also called to be “salt and light,” and this is certainly not a popular role to have to play in a world that loves darkness. Salt refers (at least on one level) of preserving that which is good, and comes from almighty God. Marriage is a God ordained institution that has benefited all of mankind by allowing for families to have stability in raising children. The attack on natural marriage has resulted in social and moral anarchy. We are largely to blame for this for not making the case for natural marriage, and failing to live it out in our own lives. But now is not the time to shrink back because of cultural pressure.

        This is not a fight that Christians or conservatives started, and nor is it one that many who are fighting wish to be in. There are countless other issues which I would much rather engage the culture in, but this is the reality in which we find ourselves living in. Freedom of religion is also a benefit to all of mankind (to the extent that it’s been allowed throughout human history) and we’ve also inherited this, while failing to make the case for it. “To whom much is given, much is required.” We’ve been given a lot, and if we lose it on our watch, without putting up a fight, God help us all!

  • Sandra Stewart

    I am one of those who do not have any real problem with some one refusing service. On one condition, that they post it publicly in their business, on their web site, and in all their literature. If you are going to be a bigot you have to own it. Trying to characterize this as anti christian (purposeful small c), where I don’t buy threats, bigotry will cost you.

  • David Phillips

    No one should be discriminated against, for any reason, be they male, female, black, white, gay, straight, handicapped, etc. However, and this is the kicker, no one has the right to tell a private business person who they will or will not serve, sell to, or buy from. And for the state and the courts to weigh in and force businesses to do so or else, is borderline fascism. Of course, this could end up backfiring on them (i.e., the Chick-Fil-A boycott), and do more damage to themselves than they could ever do to the community of faith. This could very well end up being another case of “be careful what you ask for.”

    • Chris Ryan

      There is no kicker. Just like private businesses have to pay taxes, private businesses have to comply with anti-discrimination laws. If you want to discriminate against other people you’re free to do so, you just can’t operate a business while doing it. And there’s nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise.

      • dr. james willingham

        In other words, Chris, the freedom of speech, religion, and press don’t mean squat, because political correctness curtails them with all kinds of bending the rules. I can remember, when the US government, and the Supreme Court in particular, ruled that Bob Jones University had to admit Blacks. As much I utterly dislike the segregationist idea and think it has nothing to do with the Christian Faith, I saw the rule for what it was, namely, if the rights of one can be curtailed for a reason, the same applies to all others. The effort to do this began when LBJ got mad at some preachers in Texas for opposing him, and he got the law passed that allowed the IRS to get involved with the churches. That was the beginning, but it took the folks behind the FRS that long to get the take over started. Eventually, like in one of the Scandinavian countries, we will come to the point where a minister can be sent to prison for three to six months for preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit. The truth of this whole affair is that we are dealing with a cabal, and one of the leaders in it admitted that he was proud to have a part in the advancement of their cause. And there are so many books written by advocates of that conspiracy, books against it, and books that accidentally stumble across some of the actions of the outfit and set it forth without knowledge. You all might want to read a book by a fellow named Black. His book bears the title, IBM and The Holocaust. It tells how IBM supplied the computers (the punch card kind) to Germany for its listing of Jews and their addresses in the countries they conquered along with the support for the operation of those computers. They even had an office across the street at Auswitz (sp?). At the end of the war, a special unit of American soldiers gathered up the machines and gave them to IBM, and IBM collected the money they made from such business transaction with the enemy. It had been deposited in Swiss Bank Accounts. Now do you suppose this thing might be, just might be, the work of a group bent on the destruction of our present form of government and the replacement of it with a dictatorship much like that one in Nazi Germany and/or the one with Communists? Such despotism are a good cover for wholesale extermination of groups that do not fit the norms predetermined and desired by the powers that are in real control, the folks who pull the puppet strings of our politicians and judges and a multitude of other public figures,.

  • Bruce Chowning

    And this (the LGBT community) comes from those who ask for tolerance. Why are they only targeting Christians? Have any of these folks gone into a Jewish bakery and asking them to provide a cake with the inscription: Aryan Supremacy complete with Nazi swastikas? Or have they gone into a Muslim restaurant and ordering pork chops…then telling them if they don’t they will get death threats and lawsuits? If not….why not?

  • Brian Holland

    Truly despicable, and they received a threat to have their store burned down as well! I hope this doesn’t sound to self-serving, but I wrote about this in my own blog…

    There is a civil war that is taking place in our society, and I pray that it remains non-violent, but the fact remains that the gulf that exists between the right and left in this country is simply unbridgeable. We either become a secular progressive state, or we get back to our founding Judeo-Christian principles, there is really no middle ground on these two competing world views. We have reached an impasse.

  • senecagriggs

    Satan doesn’t believe in co-existence. Never has, never will. His has always been a desire to crush dissent. To this point, he has been restrained by the Holy Spirit. But Revelation says that will change and he will be loosed. We are getting closer to that day.

      • Brian Sanders

        Jonathan: Restrained in this context means limited not incapacitated; during the tribulation that restraint will be removed.

          • Brian Sanders

            Jonathan: God is never the author of sin or evil and it is blasphemous to suggest that He is. There would be more evil than there presently is if Satan were not restrained as there will be in the Tribulation when he is unleashed for a period of time. That does not mean God causes the evil that Satan brings upon the earth.

            But you are missing an important point and that is the sinfulness in the hearts of men and women even without any temptation from the world and the devil.

  • Christiane Smith

    It is said that the gospel of Our Lord is the answer to all the world’s trouble. Somewhere in the Church are people who understand that honoring the Peace of Christ is a part of that gospel.
    If the ‘answer’ to the crowds and mobs comes from a place of anger and pride, then it cannot be appropriate for Christian people to exhibit . . .

    what I believe is that within the Church, we have a core of those who can help calm the waters and bring light to any crisis, and what they have in common at their command are the ‘weapons’ of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control . . . strange ‘weapons’ indeed, but the only ones that are effectively present in the lives of Christian people in their encounters with others who are troubled.

    We as Christians are not so much ‘under attack’ as we are called to witness to those enraged and hurt by what they consider a public affront to the dignity of a minority group. We cannot ‘hide in the Upper Room’ anymore, or see ourselves as ‘victims’ . . . we are servants of Christ and there are people who need Him. We are ‘sent forth’ into the world to bring Him to the world. We are given those strange ‘weapons’ to aid us in responding to angry and troubled folks because we who follow Christ carry within us the peace of Christ for the sake of all those who need it.

    This is a different viewpoint from much of what is going on now, but as in all the troubles of the world, when the Peace of Christ is brought to bear on a crisis, it can calm the troubled waters as nothing else is able to do.

    • Brian Holland

      Christine, with all due respect, the problem that I have with what you’ve said is that I would argue that Christ himself did not “calm the troubled waters.” He said “if the world hates you, remember it hated me first.” He also said “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” I’m convinced God is dividing the wheat from the tares, even in the church. If there is truly a wave of persecution coming, at least it will separate the “fair weather believers” from those who are truly following Christ.

      Let’s also remember that (for the most part) Paul wasn’t well received either. Everywhere he went there was either a riot, or a revival. Martyrdom comes to those who truly preach the true Gospel that we all deserve God’s righteous judgement. All must repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ to avoid that horrific fate.

      I see this as being more about Christians retreating from the culture in recent decades, when Western Civilization was shaped in every respect by the Christian faith. We need to be people who have true courage to stand for what is right. For far too long, we’ve been more concerned about being accepted than being true to Scripture in the name of being “seeker friendly.” We failed to stand against the tide of evil, and we’ve failed to speak the truth in love. May we truly repent of this abdication of our calling.

      • Christiane Smith

        Thank you for responding, BRIAN. I have read what you wrote and it makes a lot of sense from a reasonable perspective;
        but my comment is based on our need to go deeper into our faith to find a more focused response to ‘the tide of evil’ you have mentioned, and I think that response must come from the power of the Holy Spirit which becomes activated in ways we may, as humans, not perceive as ‘effective’ practically.

        The concept of the ‘Peace of Christ’ is not something that is seen in the same way by those outside of my own faith tradition, but sacred Scriptures tells us that the peace of Christ surpasses our human ability to comprehend.
        If we are to ‘witness’ with our responses to what the ‘world’ is presenting to us, then carrying this peace within us allows for its benefit to be a blessing to all concerned, surpassing what ‘divides’ and bringing Christ Himself into the storm.

        The faith of the 21 Coptic Christian martyrs recently beheaded by ISIS helped the martyrs to endure to the end. We find in the liturgy of their Church a phrase that celebrates Christ as ‘the Source’ of our strength under duress:

        ““. . . You are the life of us all, the salvation of us all, the hope of us all, the healing of us all, and the resurrection of us all.”

        Let what we do and say to the ‘world’ be rooted in Him, BRIAN.

        • Brian Holland

          Well said Christiane, and thanks for clarifying. There is a lot we can agree on here, but my overall point remains that we can’t and shouldn’t expect that we will be loved by the world for declaring biblical truth. That’s an understatement actually. We can expect to be hated. But we’ve been far too concerned about playing it safe, and what people think about us. The number of prominent Christian leaders who have been outspoken in resisting the radical gay agenda is miniscule. That being said, it doesn’t mean that we can’t have compassion for, and a burden for those people who are trapped in the destructive nature of the gay lifestyle. It’s similar to having an individual who is addicted to drugs, we can still love the sinner by telling him that he needs to take personal responsibility for the decisions that he makes in life, and offer to help, but be outspoken in saying that drugs are awful, and that we hate what they do to people. Granted sexuality/sexual orientation is more complicated than addiction, but that’s another subject for another time.

          I just don’t see Christians being able to bring peace to this situation, even with most perfect, Christ like response. I could be completely wrong, but I think the storm is coming, and God will divide the wheat from the tares based on who remains faithful to His word in the midst of increasing hatred and hostility towards all things godly. I also think we’ve compromised way too much in trying to be seeker friendly, that we ended up preaching a very man-centered “gospel,” instead of a God centered one.

          • Christiane Smith

            Hi BRIAN,
            thanks again for responding, and with such courtesy . . .

            I was reading your words, these: “I just don’t see Christians being able to bring peace to this situation, even with most perfect, Christ like response.”;
            and I thought about how different it can be if the Christian comes into the ‘situation’ but not ‘alone’. The idea of ‘bearing Christ’ actually does mean carrying Christ’s Presence into the midst of those who need Him. And not forgetting that in any ‘situation’ where there is division, ALL those involved are in need of His Presence, on both sides . . . always. Always.

            I thought I would offer some encouragement to see how it can be where His Presence is felt as a powerful goodness in a way that is effective in the worst of circumstances. There is a story of ‘La Mama’, a little woman who had been an imperfect wealthy resident of Beverly Hills, Cali;
            and then at age fifty, she experienced a great calling to help those in need in prisons. Eventually, she moved into a prison in Mexico, one of the worst ones, where there was a history of guards torturing and beating prisoners and prisoners rioting and murdering one another. So into this hell, comes Mother Antonia Brenner, to live among them, tending them when wounded or sick, and bathing the ones who died before their burials. The powerful goodness of Christ’s Presence was what she took with her into that hell and this brought hope to those who were the worst of criminals, rejected and isolated and violent in their despair.

            Inmates told how Mother Antonia once walked into the middle of a prison riot while bullets flew and tear gas filled the air. When the inmates saw her, fearless in her habit, the fighting stopped. This woman they called ‘La Mama’ was not afraid. She lived within the prison among them. She treated the prisoners like her own sons and daughters.

            She once said, ‘prison freed me’. Likely because she had given up her own self to Our Lord in service to the most unlikely of troubled souls. I have no doubt that it never occurred to ‘La Mama’ to think that a Christian could not bring peace into such a situation.

            Maybe we could, with God’s help, rethink what IS possible in the Name of Our Lord. I have been trying to understand this possibility myself for a very long time.
            Some have carried Christ to others, and we are witness to the resulting easing and even healing of terrible human torment.

            BRIAN, be encouraged.
            Our hope is anchored in a powerful goodness beyond this world.
            May the sunrise of the Day of the Risen Lord be a blessing to you and yours. May the Peace of the Lord be with you.

  • Curt Day

    It is unfortunate when talking about injustice, Christians can only cite what has been done to them, not what they might have done to others. It is like America’s view of the war on terror. Terror is what others do to us or our friends, it is never what we do to them.

    Yes, you can’t compare death threats with refusing service. But much of Jim Crow was about refusing service. There is the connection.

    • Brian Holland

      So let me get this straight, Christians are not the victims here? And America is just as guilty in the war on terror as the Islamo fascists? And it also sounds like you’re comparing refusing to participate in a same sex ceremony, which is (let’s be honest) an abomination in Scripture, to refusing to serve someone who was black in the Jim Crow south?

      The lack of moral clarity here in your comment is mind-boggling sir.

      • Curt Day

        You kind of missed what I was saying? When examining reactions, we have to look at our contributions to what led to them?

        As for America, consider our policies since the 1950s which have been based on economic gain and strategic control. These policies include the overthrowing of a democratically elected government, supporting brutal tyrants such as Saddam Hussein, the invasion and/or attacking of Middle East nations (remember that modern Zionism is a European venture), and supporting terrorism. So, have we contributed to the situation which a very small minority of Muslims have responded to with terrorism? If your answer is no, then consider how the parable of the two men praying can apply to nations.

        • Brian Holland

          Curt, I say this with all the humility and love that I can possible muster, because you sound like a nice guy, you really need to research and study the history of Islam. It is a religion of war, and it has always been at war with other faiths. The only time the Islam preaches peace is when it is in a position of weakness, and even then it is about preparing for future battle. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that there are not lots of peace loving, moderate muslims, although their silence in confronting the evil done in the name of their religion is deafening. But again these are moderate Muslims, who don’t seek to read and understand the Koran literally, and who do not have disdain for the modern world.

          You’re comment about Zionism is troubling however, and makes me wonder if you are an anti-semite. How is Israel supposed to make peace with the Palestinians, when in their own Charter, it denies that Israel has the right to even exist? Iran just reaffirmed that it wants “Death to Israel” and America btw, and yet Obama negotiated a “historic” deal with them that guarantees so called “peace.”

          • Curt Day

            Not only have I researched and studied Islam, including reading most of the Koran, I’ve taught the small part I could 3 times in a college World Religions class. That included having my notes reviewed by a Muslim to ensure accuracy and there were no significant errors noted in my lecture notes.

            The dissonance you’re experiencing is found because of how you expect Muslims to interpret the Koran. The hermeneutics you expect for them to employ is not what you’re seeing and so you’re supposing that they are not being fully consistent with their religion.

            BTW, why would questioning Zionism make one an anti-Semite, especially when there are a lot of Jews who question Modern Zionism? What is it that I said that disturbed you? I only wrote that:

            modern Zionism is a European venture

            That happens to be a statement of fact. Modern Zionism started in Europe in the 1800s when because of Christian anti-Semitism, a significant number of Jews felt that they had to go elsewhere to both feel at home in a nation and be safe from persecution. That spurred interest in returning to the Promised Land and when they did, a number of them wanted to at least partially ethnically cleanse the land of the Arab residents. In fact, the end of the Ottoman rule saw two groups seeking nationalist dreams: the Jews who were coming from Europe and the Palestinian Arab residents.

            As for more recent times, you might be interested in knowing that even Hamas has twice offered to fully recognize Israel as a nation and Israel didn’t respond at all. The condition Hamas put on the full recognition was a return to the ’67 borders. But since ’67, including now, Israel has not only conducted a brutal occupation, to which Palestinian groups, like Hamas, have responded with a some horrifying terrorism, it continues to take land and subjugate the Palestinians to horrid living conditions.

            What I would suggest is that you read about Israel’s occupation from multiple sides.

            And you might want to check whether the ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ chants are what you think they are. After all, it was America that helped Britain conduct a coup in 1953 to overthrow a democratically elected government and reinstall a Shah for the sake of oil interests and other business ventures. IN addition, the ‘Death to Israel’ might be more oriented to the end of Zionism, not the end of the Jews. And you might want to check how American-Israeli activist Jeff Halper describes Israel as an ‘ethnocracy.’

            • Brian Holland

              Do tell sir, what am I misunderstanding or misinterpreting about the Quran? You failed to give any specifics. You also failed to effectively answer the charge that the Hamas charter still, right now, fails to recognize the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel. I’m sure you would agree that the pre 1967 borders are indefensible, since they would require that the Israelis give up the Golan Heights. It would mean Israel’s sure destruction. The Palestinians were given 95%+ of everything they said they wanted with the Oslo Peace Accords, and Bill Clinton essentially tried to bribe Arafat to accept the deal with huge “donations” in the form of US aid that went straight to his bank account. His response was that he could never accept any real peace deal with Israel, no matter how good the terms were, his own people would kill him!

              If the Palestinians lay down their weapons what would happen? We’d have peace, and the whole world (maybe not other Muslim countries) would celebrate. If Israel were to lay down it’s weapons, what would happen? There would be another holocaust, and they would be wiped off the map. Think about it.

              • Curt Day

                And you have failed to address the occupation as well as the constant stealing of land by Israel. Stealing land to build settlements on the land is not a defensive tactic or strategy. And, as I wrote before, when Hamas offered to recognize Israel, Israel didn’t even discuss it with them. I should add that many of the ceasefires that have been broken have been by Israel.

                As for the Koran, one has to realize that it is a political religion revolving around social justice though it includes an eternal reward. What Mohammad saw was the rich oppressing the poor and that those who oppressed the poor tended to be polytheistic. Thus, Mohammad associated polytheism with oppression.

                In the Koran, and I am not going to look up the verses now, Mohammad is very specific about a couple of things. First, to live at peace with others who wish to live at peace. Second, he shows respect for people of the Book but also notes the difference between true Christians and Jews from materialistic ones. One of the purposes of Islam is to bring justice to the world. But that does not mean that its message has become a tool to some, the same with Christianity, or that people have not misrepresented it. It is that Islam isn’t the violent imperial religion that some have claimed it to be.

                Finally, your version of Palestinians getting “95% of everything they said they wanted” with Oslo comes from what sources? One must realize that it was Barak who terminated the Taba talks–Clinton’s presidency was also ending. In addition, the 95% land desired did not include all of the land. And not sure if the Taba talks addressed this, but Oslo II presented a deal where the West Bank would be divided into 3 parts with Israel security forces controlling two of those parts. See


                Again, you need to read multiple sides of this issue. 3 sides are to blame here: Israeli government, Palestinian leaders, and the American government. American strategic interests in this region have affected how the talks have been conducted and supported.

                BTW, your projection of what would happen if each side laid down their arms simply has no support but a lot of favoritism to it. Israel is still taking more and more land and has Gaza imprisoned. And think about your proposal for the Palestinians was made to Americans. Why not ask Americans to lay down their weapons?

                • sappi60

                  You’re citing Chomsky? Oh that’s too funny! That’s kind of like citing “Mein Kampf” and saying “See, the Jews are really the problem! It says so right here!” It’s not that you don’t know so much, it just that so much of what you know is wrong (paraphrased)!

                  • Curt Day

                    IN other words, you’re afraid of people reading what he and others have to say. So that is why you made the comparison you did and so misrepresented what is being said.

                    • sappi60

                      Not at all Curt. If you think a self-proclaimed anarchist is a wealth of wisdom then by all means, read on. I think who inspires us says a lot about who we are. Just sayin’.

                    • dr. james willingham

                      Dear Sappi60: Your remark about Chomsky being an anarchist is richly hilarious, if the sources I have seen are any indication. Cf. Dr. John Coleman’s Committee of Three Hundred: The Conspirators Hierarchy, et. al. Chomsky apparently took some training under Tavistock in England, where, evidently, they train people to act under a variety of guises to serve the central cabal. And you might want to read Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope along with David Rockefeller’s memoirs published in the 90s and see the references made to certain remarks made to his comments in that volume on you tube.

                    • sappi60

                      My, you do visit some interesting places. But you are correct. I misspoke. He is not just a self proclaimed anarchist. He is actually a self proclaimed anarcho-syndicalist advocate. My source would be the Encyclopedia Britannica, The European Graduate school biographies, as well as other noted resources. I’m sure if you “goggled” it you could certainly learn these things for yourself. But it’s also noted on Wikipedia if that’s more your speed. The definition of Anarcho-syndicalism: “Anarcho-syndicalism is one of the major forms of social anarchism. The idea behind anarcho-syndicalism is to combine the economic methods of syndicalism with the revolutionary politics of anarchism. This leads anarcho-syndicalists to be involved in everything from small propaganda groups to mass revolutionary unions, always organised according to anarchist principles, on a decentralised, federated basis.”

                    • Curt Day

                      I will go a different path from Dr Willingham. The real issue here is why disregard someone before hearing them simply because of the group they are in. And the question becomes does Chomsky anarchism in the same way that you do?

                    • sappi60

                      #1 “And the question becomes does Chomsky anarchism in the same way that you do?” The question makes no sense.
                      #2 No one is disregarded for the group they are in. But once the position has been posited and found to be lacking the position is disregarded. And to try and cite other voices saying the same thing does not make the position any more valid. It simply shows that is the only position one has chosen to accept.
                      The one thing I consistently find annoying is when people choose to ignore factual history, mainly because it take too much effort to actually study it. It’s easier just to listen to others speeches and read pamphlets and sit in “awareness groups” and be spoon-fed a position. Then, when challenged, to blurt out “snappy” come backs like “the victor always writes the history books”.
                      We all feel compassion for the little guy. And no one wants to see any group suffer oppression. However, sometimes the actual oppressors are not those who are accused, but the ones claiming to stand for the oppressed.

                    • Curt Day

                      It doesn’t make sense because, as usual, I left a word or two. The question is: Does Chomsky define anarchism the same way you do? After all, anarchists are not a monolith.

                      And I don’t find your next point plausible. Because he is an anarchist, he can’t present valid points regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What does one have to do with another? And you forgot that though he doesn’t follow Modern Zionism, Chomsky has been a Zionist–there are multiple kinds of Zionism.

                      Your initial note to me wanted to write off what I wrote as well as misrepresent it. You initially wrote:

                      You’re citing Chomsky? Oh that’s too funny! That’s kind of like citing “Mein Kampf” and saying “See, the Jews are really the problem!

                      But please reread what you were responding to:

                      Again, you need to read multiple sides of this issue. 3 sides are to blame here: Israeli government, Palestinian leaders, and the American government. American strategic interests in this region have affected how the talks have been conducted and supported.

                      Even when addressing Israel, I did not blame the Jews. I did blame the Israeli government as well as the American government and the Palestinian leaders.

                      Now, have you read Chomsky on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see whom he blames?

                      Finally, while you are emphasizing the need to know history, you are misreading the comments you are addressing. If you feel I have made a factual error or left out important facts, then fill in the blanks as you see fit. But your accusatory tone doesn’t lend itself to a logical engagement with the issue.

              • Curt Day

                Also, if the 1967 borders are indefensible, what would call the borders for the West Bank and Gaza? See, Israel is not the only group that has the right to defend themselves.

            • dr. james willingham

              Comment to Curt Day, Mr. Day, the evidence in history seems to support your position from all that I have seen and read. It is also a fact that most of the Zionists are Ashkenazi Jews, that is, Jews descended from a nation that supposedly converted to Judaism, circa 600-800 A. D. In any case the Sephardic Jews who are the descendants of Israel from the time of our Lord had quite a disagreement with the Ashkenazi Jews about the founding of the modern nation of Israel back in the 40s and 50s. It might interest you to know that if any one really went after Israel with an atomic weapon, they would run into the fact that about 30 years ago, it was revealed that Israel then had about 350 atomic weapons. The gentleman who revealed this knowledge worked at one of Israel’s atomic facilities. He was converted and became (so I understand) a Baptist and then wrote a work (book or articles, I am not sure which) which revealed the facts. He fled to England, where MOSSAD agents kidnapped him, spirited him out of the country and back to Israel where he stood trial for treason. He spent about 20 years in prison and was released in the first decade of the new millennium I think. The real truth for all believers, and this is not to say I wish harm to the Israelis or anything of that nature, but the church must be the new Israel. After all, Paul calls the church, Mt. Sion (a reference to the temple mount and thus to the church’s being the new temple), The City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (was this the city Abraham sought?), etc. (Hebs.12:22)

              • Curt Day

                Dr. Willingham,
                First, thank you for your comment and the information. We could also add here that the indigenous Jews of Palestine did not support Modern Zionism until after the Holocaust. That the European Jews had valid concerns and reasons for the Zionist venture goes without saying. However, as a friend of mine wrote:

                You appear to have learned far more from the behavior of your oppressors, than from the experience of being oppressed.

                see for the source of the quote as well as the whole article.

                In fact, there was a collective guilt after the Holocaust for not doing more to help their European cousins.

                And we should not single out what Modern Zionism is doing as being different from what many other oppressed groups have done once they could emancipate themselves. The atrocities that Israel and the Palestinian resistance visit on each other are human behaviors, not merely ethnic ones.

  • Lynn B.

    Tammy Bruce, who calls herself a gay woman, a Fox News Contributor, supports the Pizza Shop Owner and excoriates the mainstream media and the gay community. She states, “the gay community is turning into what they have been fighting against for generations… condemning people who are different (from them) and with whom they disagree (which) is the antithesis of what every civil rights movement was about… the gay liberals have turned into bullies… defending those under attack like Christians is exactly what our job should be… this is about the rights (of) everyone.”

  • bobbistowellbrown

    If you are boycotting businesses who will not participate in a gay wedding then you need to boycott these also–

  • Johnny Mason

    Also, look at the failure of leadership. The failure of church and political leadership. Instead of pastors and politicians being on the front lines taking the arrows, they throw the florists, the bakers, and the pizza-pie makers to the wolves. Instead of putting their livelihoods on the line, they watch as good, gentle people have their lives destroyed.

  • Ike Lentz

    Read the conservative blogs, and the story is that a liberal social media mob is shutting the pizza shop down. Read the liberal blogs, and the story is that a conservative social media mob is donating thousands of dollars to keep it open.

    • James Stanton

      This is something of a farce on both sides. You just explained the dissonance. The owners of the pizza shop said some things which got negative press. The zealots responded with a storm of negative reactions to what they perceive as an injustice. The social conservative right considers this social media pressure an injustice and launches a counter rally complete with fund-raising calls. The cycle continues.

      It boils down to a tantrum from both sides who haven’t yet figured out how to co-exist. I think the Supreme Court will have to make a definitive ruling on this issue and perhaps the Hobby Lobby ruling indicates how they might decide.

      • Brian Holland

        How is the side that wants to stand up for freedom of religion (which is guaranteed in the Constitution, and an idea that is throughly biblical) engaging in a farce?

        I fully acknowledge that this an unbridgeable gulf. One side has to win, and one side has to lose, and live with the consequences. There is no middle ground between the freedom that a society founded on Judeo-Christian principles ensures, and the would be totalitarian state of the secular left. I hope we can agree on this basic point.

  • dr. james willingham

    The time for Christian protests has arrived. Believers need to stand up and say, “No further.! You have your freedom to practice what we regard as a sinful lifestyle, and we have the right to practice the Christian lifestyle which does not allow for giving any indication of approval to such lifestyle as you are advocating. Now, you are going beyond it, to the point of threats and intimidation of those who simply want to make an honest living while practicing their faith. We even know of a case where young man who had been raised by Lesbians who had come to the persuasion that he should have had a father as well as a mother and that he was protesting such a lifestyle as it involved children. He was identified by the advocates of LGBT group as a “bigot.” This is hardly an action that contributes to rational discourse and the free exchange of ideas. The development of bigotry on our colleges and universities and secondary schools, even into primary schools, where a Christian is not allowed even to pray before a meal or carry or read a Bible. And in the colleges and universities, student organizations with any disagreements with the homosexual lifestyles are banned from the campuses. What next criminal charges for prejudice? How about protests like the African American protests in the days of segregation? How about a million Indiana believers showing up in Indianapolis to remind the state government that they have rights provided for by the constitution and the bill of rights? How about a reminder of the Christians who fought to establish this nation and its freedoms?”

    • Brian Holland

      Dr. James, they (meaning those who are a part of the radical gay agenda) don’t want to negotiate a peace treaty in the culture wars like the one you’ve described. They want to crush any voices of dissent. It’s much like Ferguson, where the oppressed have now become the oppressors of people who have nothing but good will towards them (in general). Our only hope (from an earthly perspective) is that fair minded people will see this for what it is, but it will not be easy for people to stand publicly against the intolerance of the gay hate machine, and it’s allies in the media. We have to be willing to not watch NCAA basketball, or NFL football in order to make a statement. I know this sounds pretty radical, but look at what the founding fathers, and the puritans before them went through to ensure that this country would be rooted in freedom.

  • Matt Martin

    But isn’t this just the free market at work – the free market that the right so proudly upholds? If you’re going to discriminate against homosexuals at a wedding, shouldn’t others be allowed to boycott and alert the public about such businesses?

    Sometimes, you do get what you ask for.

    And these threats are just that…threats. While death threats are wrong – it’s still meaningless. No one is going to kill them. You have to have a bit of a spine to run a business because you’ll get death threats when a customer finds something as little as a hair in their food.

    • Johnny Mason

      Death threats, threats to burn down the establishment, computers being hacked, phones being jammed with fake callers, people calling in orders that never get picked up, etc is not the free market at work. Apparently, according to you, the kristallnacht was just the free market not wanting to patronize Jewish businesses.

      • dr. james willingham

        Brother Mason, your reply to Brother Martin is as they say now, “spot on.” Seems the dear brother Martin is not too aware of things like Kristallnacht or the threat that the words of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others posed to Christians. Millions of believers paid with the very lives. He should study the Holy (?) Inquisition, taking notes on most of its 700 year existence as I did and noting that the thing still exists though under a different name. Rome has a wonderful way of changing its clothing in hide its deformities when denial will not work in the face of overwhelming evidence. I understand that ministers of that church went to the barbes (term for pastor in the group) of the Waldensians, and they fell down before them, begging for forgiveness. It would be understandable that the latter group might have reason to question such humility as a matter of convenience. However, to say this as proper, there are many in the Roman Church who desire and practice religious freedom. Hopefully, they shall triumph in the end.

      • James Stanton

        If any of the actions you mentioned are illegal they will and should be investigated by the police. Your comparison to the Kristallnacht is inappropriate. In that situation there were no state institutions that respected the rights of Jewish business owners and law enforcement did not act to protect them or their businesses from physical harm. I think most of the harassment this business has received can be weathered and I suspect the local community can and would support this business.

        • Brian Holland

          You can’t dismiss this. The Kristallnacht comparison is perfectly valid because we’ve become a lawless society, or at least on that allows lawlessness, and no longer cares about the truth. This case is similar to Ferguson, in that lawlessness reigns supreme, and the mob gets worked up over complete lies. In this case, it’s not just about “hands up don’t shoot” being completely made up, but about the law being able to be used to deny someone service because they are gay. Also just like Ferguson, and in pre WWII Germany, the barbarians are not just at the gates, they are inside!

        • dr. james willingham

          Bro. Stanton: There are already people in the so-called liberal movement expressing wishes for the death of Christians and people of religious persuasions. Back in the late eighties and early nineties I came across the expression of desire to kill all Christian ministers who did not agree with his denomination, headquartered in Kansas City. During the period from 2007-2011 I came across a course and certificate program recommended by ecclesiastical people (on the internet – not SBC) and I found out that the whole thing was a project of that group from Kansas City. It was a chaplaincy program for hospitals. I wrote them, calling attention to the minister’s expressed wish. I did not see the ad any more. Wonder how many ministers got turned down because they were not liberal enough for the course and approval.

          The rage that is being carefully cultivated between religious groups, racial groups, and ethnic groups is something that is well-planned and backed by big money. It seems there was a meeting in Germany in the fifties in which it was decided that the only way to bring America down was through a corruption of its morals. 55,000,000 abortions served nicely to allow for others to bring massive amounts of people into this country, people who had little or no knowledge of our institutions and how they work, little or no sympathy for the more moral way of American Spiritual life. All of which creates a great risk for an overthrow of the government which has already happened in some respects. Yesterday I heard of a person who said they had knowledge of Obama being handpicked for the president four years before he was elected, meaning, they knew he would be the president. The FRS has provided the money from our own taxes for our destruction. Barring a Great Awakening, our future is bleak. Even so, I continue to plead the promises for such a visitation as God has promised in Holy Scripture. I understand that D. Martyn Lloyd Jones prayed all during his ministry for such a revival as did G. Campbell Morgan. I knew of one pastor who had told me he had prayed for revival since the mid-fifties. He died a few years ago.

          Just imagine what a flood of grace, the standard raised against the flood of ungodliness in Ezekiel which is another flood, a flood of grace and goodness, a flood greater our sin (Roms.5:20,21). The stone smiting the image in its feet and becoming a great mountain that fills the whole earth is one of the promises that I plead. There are many others. Cf. Jonathan Edwards’ tract, Humble Attempt which inspired William Carey and others to launch the Great Century of Missions/the modern missionary movement.

          • James Stanton

            Dr. James, nations come and go. We cannot control the world around us and must simply play our part while holding fast to our principles. I am not worried about conspiracy theories or the waxing and waning of political movements or Christianity as a medium for the exercise of political power. This idea of a superior moral American spiritual life or tradition is a myth.

            • Brian Holland

              Have you read DeTouqueville? America is certainly unique, and truly exceptional in American history. Our freedoms have provided a beacon of light to all the nations of the world, however with the rise of leftism/leftist values we are being fundamentally transformed, and I don’t think we can survive this transformation and still remain the same country. Judeo/Christian values have to be preserved, but in order for that to happen, they must be fought for.

            • dr. james willingham

              Dear James Stanton: I don’t know what you know about American History, but I taught it in college and am one year and dissertation from having a Ph.D. in the field at an Ivy League university. Being well aware of the claims made about there being no Christian moral identity to this nation, while I always deny the idea of superiority, I do insist on the strongly Christian element in our nation’s history, and I am not alone in that insistence. The Supreme Court in two instances, one in 1792 and again in 1892 declared that America is a Christian nation (and the latter decision, I understand, was based on a 10 year study of our judicial history). There were also some professors from Houston about 20 years ago who made a survey of our founding documents. The found that by double digits the number one contributor to those documents was not the leading political philosophers (John Locke 2-9% or Montesquieu 7-8%), but the Bible (34%). Dr. D. James Kennedy called attention to these facts and that research. As to our place in the world, we are not here to conquer it or control it but to maintain our example of freedom and its practices. As to conspiracy theories, the real thing is not a theory; it is a well established fact. The idea that such a big conspiracy could not exist is the result of some well-planned brainwashing But they spilled the stuff in works like Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and David Rockefeller’s memoirs. One might even find whole works on the subject, enough to fill a reasonably good sized library (try a quarter of a million for an educated guess – maybe more). Daniel 2 describes the conspiracy as a mixture of iron and clay which the stone smites (repeatedly) and destroys and then fills the whole earth as a great mountain. We also are meant to go to the stars and are, in fact, from all that I can gather, already going. All so the angels can gather the elect from one end of THE (definite article in the Greek) heaven to the other (Mt.24:31)..

              • James Stanton

                There was indeed a dominant Christian influence on the founding of the country. I think, however, that this is no longer relevant. You cannot say that the US is a Christian nation, however you define that, today. A lot of Christians just happen to live here.

                • dr. james willingham

                  Dear James: Why did the Supreme Court on two occasions assert that this was a Christian nation? And even to this day, there are people who remember facts from as recently as World War II where the president of the US provided Bibles for soldiers with a personal note from the President, asserting Christian influence. Since the secularists and Atheists and others have begun their great push, shall we just give up, throw in the towel and quit?

            • dr. james willingham

              Christian equality between masculine and feminine believers is taught in Holy Scripture. No females were allowed membership in the secular ekklesias in the New Testament era, but in the Christian Ekklesias they were equals. Even John Gill admitted that they could speak in church, at least, giving their testimonies or speaking in a church trial case. In addition, Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall had eldresses in the Sandy Creek Church, and several Puritan writers justified the practice. One was Matthew Poole who stated that in commenting on I Tim.2, that no woman could teach or preach except she be specially called, gifted, and endowed. Refusal to hear a woman in such a case would be an act of rebellion against God. The complementarianism of the Bible is really a functional complementarity, that is, it is a function of the position of leadership and not an innate part of the authority of leadership itself. The proof is also that not even the military do they allow unlimited authority. JAG exists to deal with cases where officers have overstepped their bounds as well as personnel who have failed to perform their duties. Complementarity is not unconditional. If a man uses his authority to sexually abuse his children, he will find that he is in trouble with the law and with all Christian views of complementarity. I should also point out that there are cases where churches have insisted that wives stay with their husbands who were abusing them, and the result was murder. Life in a free society involves checks and balances. Checks and balances allow for a depraved people to live as their freest without becoming anarchists who destroy one another for a mere whim.

  • Jonathan Bee

    when you advocate for weakening men, telling them to be house dads in the name of sacrificial leadership, what do you think will happen to the culture.

    all this is tied to the removal of the male role in society, Christians that advocated for this should not whine when gay marriage is tolerated

    There is little difference between these people saying we will not serve a gay wedding and them not serving an interracial wedding…
    just because of their beliefs.

    Ultimately this is a sign of weakness, weak men and the rest of the world is watching
    Evil is salivating.

    • Brian Holland

      You had me up until you said refusing to participate in interracial weddings is the same as refusing to participate in gay weddings. There are no fundamental differences between races, other than based on relatively superficial external characteristics. There are certainly differences between cultures, but this is the tragedy of our time, that people have bought into the lie of the left, in confusing race and culture. They are in fact separate entities. Men and women are fundamentally different, and this is at the root of biblical opposition to gay marriage, whereas with regards to race the Bible says that we are all created in His image. There is no conflating the two issues. I would make this argument even if I were not in an interracial marriage.

  • Christiane Smith

    We follow a Lord Who endured the worst this world could do to anyone. And He returned to us from the grave saying, ‘Peace be with you’

    If we would remember who we are as followers of Christ, our reactions to ‘the world’ will reflect His blessing of shalom

    ‘Peace be with you’ . . . these are words of blessing spoken with great love . . . and yes, spoken to those some call ‘our enemies’,
    but in the end there are only broken and injured people . . . and there is only one enemy, satan . . . and there is only one Answer to the world’s pain, which is Christ Who loves

    We need to remember Who we serve. And if, as His servants, we speak to those who wish us ill, let us use His great words of blessing, ‘peace be with you’

  • Kamilla


    I caught your strange exchange with Mrs. Turner on Twitter. I can’t help thinking she knows nothing about these threats. If that isn’t persecution, I don’t know what is.

  • Mike Norman


    Rebecca Mickley

    12 mins ago

    I am part of the GLBT community and live in Washington and I want to say with a loud voice that I support the first amendment and religious freedom. I am deeply hurt that all of this has been done in the name of tolerance. I hope this helps you keep your home!

    • dr. james willingham

      I am sure many will appreciate your efforts Mr. Norman, and we wish all in GLBT as you termed it would feel and do the same. Unfortunately, there are those who want to take advantage of the conflict to push it to the limits as they are attempting to do in Ferguson, Missouri. The problem they have, however, is that they started a bit late, because the churches are starting to integrate on an increasing scale as never before. The church which ordained me, now with a different name and located in Ferguson, has a membership that is 2/3rds African American. Even so, the folks who want a revolution are agitating every thing they can or cause agitation in many areas, hoping to ignite a breakdown of law and order resulting in the imposition of law and order which would be an excellent cover for the groups to begin to do what they want, namely, the elimination of the Christian element which has stood for the family, religious liberty (actually the Baptists in particular first wrote about it and paid for that writing by imprisonment and death and then they put it into law and practice in Rhode Island and then they had a big hand in the Revolution in exchange for religious liberty and supported Madison and Jefferson in their effort to secure religious freedom.

  • Nathan Cesal

    I’m all for freedom of religion, that’s why I support marriage equality. 

     I’m also for open commerce and not excluding (most) anyone from free participation.  Telling someone that they can find another business that will provide the desired goods and services is not sufficient.  What would you say if Memories Pizza was forced out of business because their suppliers will no longer sell them the cheese, tomato sauce, pepperoni, and cardboard boxes because the suppliers couldn’t support such a sinful way of doing business?  What if their landlord doesn’t renew their lease?  What if the phone company employee couldn’t fix their telephone line?  Maybe other suppliers exist, maybe they don’t.  Maybe they have to stop providing gluten-free options.  Maybe in the end, it’s too bad, so sad – your pizza place is a sad memory.  Commerce needs to be open – not one where you have to have the approved, straight (un-gay) mark to participate.

    • James Stanton

      I’m thinking it’s because Muslims are a significant minority group who don’t have a history of loudly supporting legislation that harms the interests and liberties of homosexuals. Same for Orthodox Jews. Both sects are typically socially conservative.

      • Mike Lynch

        I’m thinking it’s because the demonstrators are cowards and don’t have to worry about getting blowed up. (I don’t think any of these shop owners doing such a thing, but I can see some crazy outsider Muslim coming to a demonstration to try something. And I’m sure most potential LGBT protesters think the same thing.)

        • James Stanton

          You seem to think “Christians” are not capable of being radicalized and committing acts of terrorism. They are and there are plenty of examples. The KKK would be one.

          • sappi60

            James, just because someone calls themselves a member of a particular group doesn’t make them one. I could call myself a Kumquat, that doesn’t make me one. A Christian is a Christ follower, which means they follow His example. I see no where in scripture where it says to hate people and burn crosses on their lawns. It seems like people will allow for the President to say ISIS is not Islamic, but when Christians say the KKK and Westboro Baptist are not Christian people such as yourself won’t allow for the differentiation.

            • James Stanton

              I am well aware that you would not consider these people Christians and I happen to agree. Yet, many of them claim to be Christians and cling to a sense of Christian identity. We have a share of responsibility when people act in our name. Do you not feel the majority of Muslims have a responsibility to call out those amongst them who resort to terror?

              I would say that the President was right and so are you. He was saying Muslim terrorists do not represent all of Islam and you are saying violent Christian extremists are not Christians. My point it is just as likely in the United States for a Christian or a Muslim to respond to these provocations in a violent manner. We can argue about whether they were actually Christians or not after the fact.

    • Jonathan Bee

      Christian men are taught to sacrificial lead by submitting to feminism
      never telling women off for doing wrong
      even if they challenge the provision and protection of their family
      aka Christian men are wimps

      Muslim men on the other hand have no time for feminists or LGBTQ rights especially if they threaten the provision and protection of their family.

      • James Stanton

        Your post is not lacking in generalizations. I’m not sure what church you are attending but a gospel-centered church is not teaching what you seem to think is common.

        Muslim men in the United States are not the same as Muslim men in other countries.

        Are you a supporter of some kind of Christian Sharia?

        • Jonathan Bee

          Typical anti male attitude.
          If you stopped critiquing men for taking a strong stand against feminism etc years ago you would never be here.
          Instead you belittle such men.
          Fact is Muslim men do a better job of protecting and providing for their family then Christian men.

          • James Stanton


            You are not taking a stand against feminism by writing some words on the internet. Are Muslim men in the Middle East providing for their family when they abandon their wives and children to go to participate in a jihad against the infidels? Your facts are wrong.

            • Jonathan Bee

              Christian men value domesticity and submission as their responsibility
              Muslim men value provision and protection even risking their life …

  • sappi60

    The problem is the definition of “discrimination”. The left will always call refusing service to anyone “discrimination”, while the right will call some forms, such as not offering their services for a gay wedding, “following their conscience”. The left will say, “well, that excuse can be used to discriminate against blacks and people of other religions”. But actually, no, it can’t. Because there is no where in scripture that calls being another race a sin and nor anything that says Christians cannot have dealings with other faiths. However, there are very strong prohibitions against homosexuality. And the left will say, “well that’s your interpretation”. Which is fine, but it is based on that interpretation that many Christians base their moral stance. The problem with trying to make a moral stance against serving other races or other faiths is you cannot substantiate it with scripture. And if you are going to make a moral stance you need something to be the basis of that stance. Christians can substantiate it with a body of scriptural work, historical studies on scripture, and nearly 2000 years of tradition.
    Now the left will say, “oh sure, but the church used the Bible to justify the Inquisition and the Crusades and the killing of indigenous peoples in the New World.” But there’s a difference between claiming a “righteous” justification and supporting it with scripture.
    You need to have some substantive basis for a moral stance. Acts of racial or religious bigotry cannot be substantiated with scripture. Acts of moral conscience can.
    But until the left is willing to accept the difference in definition (which will likely never happen because it doesn’t benefit their agenda), Christians will continue to be attacked and the attacks will increase. And though the left is doing the same thing they accuse Christians of doing — trying to legislate morality — it again benefits their agenda so they will refuse to acknowledge their own hypocrisy in it, because (as exampled by Nevada Senator Harry Reid) it’s more important to win than be right.
    My caution to left, though, is to look at history. The behaviors we’re seeing in Indiana are reminiscent of Kristallnacht except that in place of baseball bats and molotov cocktails are Twitter and other forms of social media, texting, and the mainstream media. But if you also look at history, it did not end well for the Brown Shirts. — Joyce Sappington

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.