adulterer, divorcee, gossiper, wife beater, pornographer, purchaser of pornographer, someone who works on the Sabbath, thief, idol worshipper, obese, pork, mixed fibers
how do you identify, when you've accepted payment without realizing the wedding, funeral, or party; what will you do when you realize the fact.
If Crist was visibly standing next to you, and you deny service to someone who is gay. Do you think he will say "Way to go, that's what I meant when I said love thy neighbor as you love yourself.
*
“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” ~Matthew 5:41
*
Doesn't Memorial Pizza prove that RFRA would be used to discriminate, and for profit?
*
Where do we draw a line? Go to Jesus who drew a line in the sand then told the crowd who had gathered to stone a woman…let the one of you who is without sin, cast the first stone.
*
Seriously, if this is an Indiana thing, I apologize for my food snobbery. But if it isn’t, what are Chrystal O’Connor and her dad, Kevin, so freaking worried about? You can’t find a menu for Hateful Memories Pizza online, but I would bet they have a pizza with bacon. Leviticus, the same book that fundamentalists quote every damn time they want to “prove” it’s okay to hate gay people, also has this to say about eating pork: And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. (Leviticus 11: 7-8)
Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/memories-pizza-is-first-indiana-business-to-deny-service-to-lgbt-customers/
Of course, the fact the food banks are that low indicates its a good bet that the general population as a whole are not contributing. It would be save to point out segments of the population in general for criticism: people at the casino, people on a cruise ship. These people would be examples for legitimate criticism, in general. Naturally some of them may give profusely to food banks and charities but the criticism would be valid in general, especially if members of the group blowing their money at a casino were at the same time denouncing the values of charity while children were going hungry.
The sentiments of the post is not that all Christians are being hypocritical. The sentiment that "so called" Christians, in this case ones who are attempting to obtain government sanctions for denying services to segments of the population under the claim that it violates their religious freedom.
The pizza owners were never going to be forced to cater a gay wedding, shoot, whoever heard of a pizza catered wedding. The truth is their business would be able to refuse doing a gay wedding by stating that they don't cater weddings. If you deny a service to everyone, you can deny the service to anyone. The truth is the pizza owners were demonstrating their desire to refuse service to some. If you do business in the public domain you have obligations to the public.
If their objection was because of religious, Christian, beliefs then shouldn't they also refuse to cater weddings for: divorcees, adulterers, straight couples who have been living together, convicted felons, covet-ers, gossipers, liars, pornographers? No, just gay couples. Catering a wedding is not endorsing a marriage, or a lifestyle.
Do they serve pizzas with pork on them? I'm sure they do. (see Leviticus)
The pizza owners made more in one week than their business makes in a year, by singling out one group to discriminate against and USED their religion as an excuse.
The sentiments of the post is that under the cover of their religion others are doing the same. Not all Christians, because the crowd of protesters against the law, and the bulk of those opposed to it are also calling themselves Christian.
The term "so called" Christians is not to defame anyone who agrees with the law, or anyone who is opposed to gay marriage, it is in reference to those people who claim to be Christians and fail to live up to THEIR OWN Christian standards that they preach and try to impose upon others, or try to use as a weapon to oppress. If your going to try and impose Old Testament Law, by setting it as a standard for others then remember " there are 613 laws in the Torah (Books of Moses). Of those, 365 are in the “thou shalt not...” category." and if you get to pick and choose then so should others.
Darrell M. West gives President Obama a B+ on his ability to reposition government as a solution rather than a problem and for making good progress in a situation of extreme political polarization and unusually large policy challenges. 
William Antholis and Charles Ebinger give President Obama a B+ on taking mostly positive steps internationally, but some missteps domestically, on building a secure energy future for the United States. 
Isabel V. Sawhill and Ron Haskins give President Obama a composite score of B-, applauding his fast action to create more opportunity in the recession but questioning the fiscal sustainability of the safety net. 
William Gale and Benjamin Harris give the administration a B, for their handling of tax and fiscal policy in meeting the challenges of the global economic crisis. However, they remain concerned in the lack of progress on efforts to reform the tax and fiscal system.
Noam Unger gives the administration a B- for its record of leadership in global development. Unger says that improved effectiveness in this area would help reduce global poverty, support the emergence of more capable partners and mitigate transnational threats.
Karen Dynan and Martin Baily give the Obama administration an A- in its effort to restore U.S. economic confidence, offering credit for deft handling of the economic crisis but raising questions about whether the president has laid the foundation for sustained growth.
Vanda Felbab-Brown gives President Obama a B for laying out the right strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan but doing it too late in 2009 to stem the insurgency, corruption and apathy. 
Martin Indyk and Kenneth M. Pollack give the president an overall grade of B for confronting big challenges in a region that includes Iraq, Iran, terrorism in Yemen, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. That reflects an A for effort, they say, and a C for results that have so far not matched the promise of the administration’s ambitious agenda.
Kemal Dervis and Eswar Prasad give President Obama a B+ for what the new administration accomplished on global economic policy during the crisis, but temper the high grade with an incomplete for the big tasks that lie ahead, partly the result of problems created by the very policies that got us out of the crisis.
Bruce Katz and Robert Puentes give the president and his administration an A- for boosting infrastructure spending and for initiating policy reforms and innovations in the first year. On the bigger effort to rebuild American prosperity, however, they feel that the work is, thus far, incomplete. 
Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott give President Obama an A- in tackling the transnational threats posed by nuclear proliferation, the arms race with Russia, and climate change. They are taking into account the difficulties that Obama faces in four respects: the sheer magnitude and complexity of the agenda, a difficult Russian negotiating partner, the burden of the Bush legacy of unilateralism, and the intensity of political opposition. 
Because Congress has not yet enacted legislation to reform health care, Henry Aaron assigns a grade of ‘incomplete’ on this issue, noting that history will judge the president depending on whether the effort succeeds or fails in the long run. 