Love & Hate – We Lost The True Meaning

I was recently reading an article about the couple in Oregon who lost their bakery business because they would not make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because of their Religious convictions. There is something in that article that stuck out for me, it is this:

“Our culture has accepted 2 huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense.” Somehow, in our society, we have come to a point, that because we disagree with someone, we are automatically labeled a hater, which could not be farther from the truth.

I myself think that homosexuality is wrong and also same sex marriage, but if someone wants to live that way, knock yourself out, just don’t force me to accept something I know in my heart is wrong. The dictionary has the meaning of hate as:

  1. To dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest:  To hate the enemy.
  2. To be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
  3. To feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

If you go by the meaning of hate that is in the dictionary, I can honestly say that I hate no one. There are people I dislike, there are people I disagree with, but do I hate them, not if you use the actual meaning from the dictionary.

It seems to me, that the owners of the bakery were denied their First Amendment right of freedom of Religion. They did not refuse to sell the lesbian couple a cake, they refused to decorate it with a same sex couple. Why didn’t the lesbians just go to another bakery, instead they pushed to close down the business, they seem more like the haters in this story.

It is the same with love, the meaning of love in the dictionary is as follows:

  1. A feeling of strong or constant affection for a person
  2. A attraction that includes sexual desire : the strong affection felt by people who have a romantic relationship
  3. A person you love in a romantic way

To say that we must love one another seems ridiculous to me, if you go by the meaning in the dictionary. Love and hate are two intense opposite words; I think we use them without thinking about their true meaning. It is the same with the word racist, which the Liberals love to throw around at the drop of a hat. The dictionary defines racist as the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others. Yet, people are called racist because they disagree with Obama’s policies.

I have to admit, the Liberal-Progressives have perfected this kind of attack, and everyone that disagrees with them is automatically branded as a hater, when all people are doing is voicing their own views and opinions. In this upside down world of political correctness we live in today, it seems what is right has become wrong, and what is wrong has become right.

In the movie The Godfather, there is a scene where drug dealer Virgil Sollozzo meets with the Godfather to ask for protection for his drug business. When the Godfather turns him down, the Godfather says something very profound. “It makes no difference what a man does you understand, just as long as your interests don’t conflict with mine.” In other words, do what you want to do, but leave me alone. If Liberals can only learn to live by that rule, think how much better the world would be.


“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book” A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

SpeechThis is one man’s opinion.



Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Related Articles


  1. “SUMPIN’ WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE” A man & his wife take their skills and knowledge, have a ‘dream’, develop a business plan, raise the money necessary to open a business so that the government and ‘displaced’ values without an iota of financial or sweat equity can tell then how to run the business or lose it…….Ya know, if I go to a store that can’t provide me with what I want, I go elsewhere…how simple is that and everyone is happy.

    I have to agree with you that the Liberals have perfected this type of attack…BUT the number of Conservatives IF UNITED can surround and out number these mis-guided igets.

    NOV 4…put yourself aside and VOTE FOR AMERICA

  2. I disagree. First I look at the public accommodation laws that the city has as well as State before I apply for a business license. If public accommodation states that if I have a public business, and that I, the owner of that business, can not discriminate against sex, race, religion, age, sexual orientation nor gender identity, then to operate that business publically, I must agree to those laws regardless of my personal beliefs, as in public, the First Amendment makes other people’s beliefs or non beliefs equal to my own, and as such makes religious argument a moot point.

    If I wanted to circumvent public accommodation laws in order to intentionally exclude someone because of lifestyle (homophobia, bigotry) or their color (racism), or their sex (sexism, transphobia), then I need to open a private club under the law and abide be laws to accomodate membership fees and club specific taxations. I just keep in mind that clubs generate much less in income and make far fewer sales and receive much less business that having a public business, but I can enforce my beliefs for my business running it as a private club.

    The bakery owners chose money over beliefs, agreed with public accommodation laws, ran a public business, then broke the public accommodation laws citing religion, which in a public business is moot under the First Amendment. The business was public, not a private club. The owners of the bakery received the proper punishment and fines for breaking public accommodation laws.

    Sorry if you don’t agree, but it takes only a smidgen of intelligence to realize the truth of the situation. The owners were bigots, homophobe. It was their place to do their jobs, not discriminate based on sexual orientation in violation of public accommodation laws that they agreed to abide by when they obtained their business license.

    Bigotry needs to end in this country. The constitution “All men are created equal” needs to be abided, regardless of a persons gender identity or sexual orientation.

    The 14th Amendment and 5th Amendments assure this.

    Take Care.

    1. Sorry Bryttany you’re wrong, the couple did not refuse to sell them a cake, they refused to decorate it with a same sex couple. They could have bought the cake and decorated it themselves, or just went somewhere else. The couple were right, I hope they win their appeal.

      1. The problem with your premise is that they decorate cakes as part of their service. Public accommodation laws state all must be treated equally, as such, if the cake shop decorates wedding cakes for hetero couples as part of their service, then public accommodation laws of public business demands that same sex couples receive the same service, regardless of one’s personal belief.

        The owner violated public accommodation laws. She offered the service of decorated wedding cakes, sold many they decorated to hetero couples, refused service to same sex couples based on customer’s sex and sexual orientation. That violated public accommodation laws of Oregon (State public accommodation law) where the offense took place. Denver, where the other cake shop was sued has similar State public accommodation laws. Religious belief can not be imposed on the public when operating a State agency or Public Business, only a private club which has its own laws and guidelines.

        So you are incorrect, the owner chose to violate the law.

        The owner’s other choice was to sell no wedding decorated cakes to either same sex or hetero couples. That would have prevented them from violating their bigotry beliefs and adhering to the State’s public accommodation laws.

        only an ignorant person, or one ignorant of law, could consider the shop owners not guilty of bigotry and violating public accommodation laws.

        The shop owners should have been well versed in public accommodation laws before applying for their business license and carefully considered the ramifications of the meaning of those laws and adjusted their products and services accordingly prior to opening their business. Failure to do so then being brought to court for their bigoted choice based in religious personal belief that has no place or justification under the First Amendment in a public business is their own fault.

        Personal beliefs are not protected for shop owners, only customers. A Muslin shop owner cannot refuse service to one because they are Hindu on the basis of being an infidel, that violates public accommodation laws. Same goes for businesses attempting to deny sales or service to someone because of gender identity or sexual orientation based on personal religious belief. It is illegal
        If you offer services to hetero couples, you must also offer those exact same services to same sex couples dispute personal religious beliefs. You legal choice is to offer the service to everyone equally, or no one at all, that simple.

        That is the law where they live. They agreed to abide by that law when they applied for their business license, then they knowingly and deliberately violated said law and attempted to use religion as a basis for their bigotry, which religion in a public business is indefensible when used against another person. First Amendment protects personal belief, not public imposition of those beliefs upon others as another’s beliefs in public are equally as valid under the First Amendment. Religion defense is no defense when attempting to defend violation of public accommodation laws. Religion is no defense for bigotry. Even Jesus served the sinners

        1. So if someone wants pornographic decorations or pictures of people being beheaded, or people violating children or any other type of perversion, they would have to do it? I don’t think so, all they have to say is we don’t do that type of decoration. And that violates nothing.

          1. Only if it isn’t part of their regular services.

            Selling decorated wedding cakes is part of their business. They decorated them for hetero couples. State accommodation law requires them to perform the same services for same sex couples.

            They are not required to decorate a cake in ways outside their normal services, but their normal services must comply with Accommodation laws.

            Religion is no excuse for bigotry nor for breaking the law.

            They broke the law.

            Please use some intelligence when attempting to make an argument.

            The owners chose to exercise bigotry and violate state laws. They attempted to claim religion to exempt them from breaking the law, but the First Amendment prevents imposition of religious belief onto anyone else in public. A business owner can not use religion to discriminate, especially Christians, as the Bible says “follow the laws of the land” and Jesus said “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”.

            Ignoring State laws conflict with their religious doctrine, which also nullifies their religious claim, even though religion to violate State Law isn’t a valid defense as the court sees all religions, beliefs, and non beliefs as equally valid under the First Amendment.

            Bigotry needs to end, and you need to learn business law. I own my own company. Computer Repair Shop with 10 employees. I must follow public accommodation laws as well. But that is easy for me, I’m not racist, bigoted, sexist. I am a happily married woman with 3 children. I am married to a beautiful Hispanic woman. I also happen to be transgender, full transition 21 years ago (including SRS). My wife and I have been legally married for 19 years. I think I know what I am talking about.

            It isn’t rocket science. I deal with bigots daily, and I must abide by public accommodation laws where I live. My choice would be to kick them out, but so long as they are not violent or disruptive or harassing my other customers or staff, or harassing me, then I must abide by the law as everyone else must abide by the law.

            I don’t expect that you would be intelligent enough to study up on laws and judicial procedures, because if you were that intelligent, your comments wouldn’t be here, and you would know what you are attempting to (but failing miserably at) talk about.

            I love chats with unarmed, and under equipped people. Just lets others see how they failed to get and expand upon a proper education.

            When you learn, and vet at least to a 10th grade civics class level, let me know, we can debate more.

            Fact is the owner is a bigot and violated state law and thought wrongly as most religious zealots that she could violate the law under the guise of the First Amendment, now she has a first hand Civics Class lesson.

            You can not impose religious beliefs/bigotry upon others when operating a public business. Civics 101.

            She got to learn State and Federal law the hard way. I love seeing cases like this. It all comes down to how educated one is. She wasn’t very well educated.

        2. You sound like a broken record, The lesbians were wrong and the bakers will win their appeal. You must be a Liberal, if someone disagrees with what you believe, they must be a bigot. Show some tolerance for other peoples views, other than your own.

          1. Um, you know this case has already been tried, just like the one in Colorado, and the Farm in NY that refused a wedding as they too are a public business… They have all already run the appeals courts. All the one’s violating public accommodation laws whilst claiming religious reasons for their bigotry have all lost. They are paying fines now. The ones in Colorado and NY still have their businesses, but have to attend therapy for their bigotry towards the LGBT populace. Oregon lady lost her business and is currently making cakes privately out of her home to pay her legal fees and fines.

            They all lost as religious belief is no excuse for bigotry and is indefensible in court as it places the owner clearly at fault by attempting to violate the First Amendment by trying to impose personal beliefs, claimed as a religious belief, upon another individual in a public venue in violation of State Public Accommodation Laws.

            You can’t arbitrarily refuse service to someone who is LGBT. It is against the law. Period. UNLESS your business is a members only private club. Then you deal with a different set of laws to abide by.

            Plain and clear. Even my 5 year old gets it. Do you?

          2. Also, I am conservative. I just know the law. Apparently you don’t.

            Personal beliefs are in your home and church, not in public business. Rule of law dominates there. Period.

        3. I know that the only bigot in this conversation seems to be you. Oh, I forgot,Liberals can’t be bigots. It all boils down to what kind of judge they get a far left judge or a normal judge. My prayers are with the business owners.

      1. Rush lost credibility about 13 years ago. He’s nothing but a crackpot who makes a living preaching to the fringe extreme right wing nut jobs, mainly evangelicals.

        He’s a lot like Steven Colbert for the liberals, only way further off on the deep end.

        Me, I’m moderate. Conservative fiscally, socially moderate, maybe a touch liberal to social issues.

        I vote for candidates that match my spectrum, usually that is Repub. But in the last 6 years, libertarian.

        everyone deserves respect, to follow the law and to be treated equally, no matter who shares their bedroom. Not hard to be a decent person and act as a Christian, you know, as Jesus taught, Love everyone as He loved us, for no greater love does one have than by giving up one’s own life for someone else. This is how Jesus lived us and Jesus commanded us to love one another likewise with forgiveness and non judgment, treating them how we want to be treated. Treating others as we would treat God or Jesus, just like Jesus treated us.

        How Christian are your values. Can you treat someone without judgment or prejudice like Jesus would if you knew they were gay, or would you be a bigoted like those business owners?

        This is the purpose of Public Accommodation Laws. Equal treatment of everyone, just as Jesus did, enforced by the law. Someone’s sexuality doesn’t make a lick of difference in business. Just do your job and don’t discriminate. Period. Jesus said Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

        You never know when someone you are serving, whether gay or straight, is an angel God sent to test you, so why take chances!

        1. I agree 100% with the business owners, so I guess I am a bigot. Like I said in my article I myself think that homosexuality is wrong and also same sex marriage, but if someone wants to live that way, knock yourself out, just don’t force me to accept something I know in my heart is wrong. You on the other hand find it necessary to call others names because they have different views. In my book that makes you the bigot.

          1. Acting upon an unreasonable dislike or hatred is bigotry.

            The owners of the shop could have done their job in accordance with public accommodation laws despite their personal views towards same sex couples.

            Instead they acted upon their dislike (bigotry) and violated state laws the agreed to uphold when they applied for their business license, which makes them liars as well, also a top 10 sin. Thou Shall Not Lie. They made an agreement in contract to follow said law, then deliberately broke said agreement and law. That makes them liars as well. They have to face God on that one. They also have to follow the laws of the land as the Bible says, they violated that as well and will have to answer to God for that, but more immediately, answer to the State.

            Bigotry isn’t in the Gospels of Christ, nor is it allowed in public accommodation laws.

            I’m not hating you or acting against you, I’m pointing out the errors of you supposed facts and logic. I asked you to become intelligent on a topic you have more than proven you have extremely little knowledge about. That is not Bigotry.

            Refusing to obey laws due to a personal dislike of a class of people guided in a claim of religious belief is Bigotry. Textbook definition.

            Christianity, especially the Gospels, teaches against Bigotry, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

        2. You are the text book example of a closed minded individual and a little bit of a waco
          “There is none so blind as he who will not see.”

          1. I’m not the one who is so narrow minded, closed minded and ignorant as to refuse service to someone just because they are gay, trans, straight, old, young, black, white, brown, red, yellow, American, Russian, British, etc.

            Everyone is different. Even Jesus provided services to the sinners, the Gentiles, the poor, the wealthy, the Jews, the righteous, etc. In a non discriminatory manner. Jesus told us to love one another unconditionally. That is how I live.

            Who are the ones being closed minded towards the LGBT?

            Who are the ones being closed minded to the teachings of Christ?

          2. Chris I read that woman’s comments and I agree she is a very closed minded person. It seems it is her way or the highway. She refuses to accept the fact that there are other points of view besides hers, the whole world must think like she does or they are bigots.
            I don’t think she is a little bit of a waco, I think she is a lot of a waco. It is people like her that divide.

          3. So, what other point of view is there that complies with non-discrimination / public accommodation laws and practices the principles Jesus taught about not judging, forgiving, treating others as you want to be treated, and loving everyone, regardless of who or what they are, unconditionally, as commanded by Christ?

            “Gays are ‘icky’ and I don’t want to serve them” isn’t a Christian value, but it is the basis of a bigot.

            So what is the other points of view?

          4. Lady you see nothing but your own view and you make my point for me and you don’t even realize it.
            And if you read the article, the business owners did not refuse to sell them a cake, they could have bought any cake they wanted, just not with the decoration they wanted. There is no use talking to you because you will not look past your own nose.

          5. And you fail to realize that any service a open to the public business does for one type of customer, they must do for all customers per Oregon State Public Accommodation Laws.

            The owners sell fully decorated wedding cakes to hetero couples on a regular basis as a normal business practice.

            Public Accommodation Laws State that the owners must be able and willing to sell fully decorated wedding cakes to Dame Sex Couples.

            The only other option is to not decorate any wedding cakes at all regardless of Opposite Sex or Same Sex Couples.

            How hard is that to grasp?

            We Decorate for Opposite Sex couples, but not for Same Sex Couples is sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. Period.

            This violates public accommodation laws, plain and clear.

            Personal belief is moot in an open to the public business because

            #1) In public, all religious beliefs are equally valid and as such, the owner cannot impose their beliefs onto their customers. First Amendment Limitation already ruled upon by SCOTUS.

            #2) The owners agreed to abide by all State and Local laws when applying and receiving their business license. Public Accommodation Laws are part of the set of laws they agreed to.

            #3) If the owners did not approve of their responsibility under the public accommodation laws, they could have filed for a member’s only private club license and abide by regulations of private clubs accordingly.

            So again, I ask, what other point of view is there concerning the law and how Jesus told us to treat our fellow persons; with love, forgiveness, non judgment, and respect (as how we would want to be treated).

            Come on. What point of view is there?

            Or is it that you don’t agree with the laws in place an just because someone is different, say black, or gay, or trams, that you should be able to show hate and contempt, violate Jesus Teachings, just because they are “icky” to you?

          6. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

            Ignoring the teachings of Christ is not Christianity.

            Failure to realize this is proof of you inability to understand and accept reality.

            People do not have the right to refuse service on people because of age, sexual orientation, race, gender identity, ethnicity, sex, religion.

            This is law already ruled upon by SCOTUS many many years ago. 1971, IIRC.

            Jesus never turned anyone away. In fact he healed a Gay Centurion’s paid (young male lover) in Matthew and told Israel He had found no greater faith.

            Jesus did not discriminate. Why do you believe you have the right to be unChristian and do the opposite of what Jesus would do?

            I really want to know the true reason. Jesus worked with everyone, nondiscriminatorialy.

            Are you better than Christ? Do you hate Federal and State laws that uphold Christ’s teachings?

            What are your points of view? Please give a logical and valid reason.

  3. Bryttany, first off, let me commend you for taking an interest in the issue. That being said, I ask that you, in turn, listen to opinions not your own…When you don’t, you limit yourself.

    I see your reference to the V and XIV Amendments. Even though I have studied and taken refresher courses in the Constitution with Dr Lino Graglia, University of Texas Law. I wanted to validate my own recall…..The 5th Amendment deals with crime and self incrimination…the 14th Amendment addresses (in 5 sections) the qualifications to hold offices , validity of public debt & subject of jurisdiction of citizens under the Federal or State law and that NO law shall abridge the privileges. and finally the power of Congress to enforce the provisions . NO WHERE IN EITHER ONE DOES IT ADDRESS OR MENTION A SINGLE PROVISION FOR GOVERNING INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS PRACTICE……

    I also looked for information concerning the ‘public accommodation law’ and could not find anything on it. Perhaps you could share your source?

    Curious….if you go to a Christian Bookstore, would you be equally upset if they didn’t provide a Koran or prayer rugs?

    Keep up your interest and try to learn that sometimes others do know best.

    1. State Discrimination Law
      In order to be protected by Oregon´s discrimination laws, employees must be employed by a company with at least one or more employees, except where noted. Protected classes include:

      •Race / color
      •National origin
      •Sex (includes gender, pregnancy and sexual harassment)
      •Sexual orientation
      •Retaliation for opposing an unlawful employment practice
      •Association with a member of a protected class
      •Age (18 or older)
      •Marital status
      •Physical/Mental disability (6 or more employees)
      •Injured workers (6 or more employees)
      •Family relationship.

      Oregon employees also have civil rights protections related to:

      •Opposition to health/safety conditions
      •Expunged juvenile record
      •Polygraph/blood alcohol tests
      •Genetic screening/brain wave tests
      •Consumption of lawful tobacco products during non-work hours
      •Child care garnishment
      •Volunteer firefighter leave
      •Organized militia leave
      •Payment of medical exams as a condition of continued employment
      •Family leave (25 or more employees)
      •Leave to donate bone marrow
      •Right of access to employer owned housing
      •Reporting health care violations in nursing homes
      •Leave for members of legislative assembly
      •Legislative testimony
      •Testifying at unemployment hearings
      •Whistleblowing law
      •Reporting criminal activity
      •Retailiation against nurses reporting hospital health and safety violations
      •Academic degree in theology or religious occupation

      Discrimination in Real Property Transactions
      State discrimination law also prohibits a person from refusing to sell, lease, or rent any real property because of an individual´s race, color, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, familial status, physical or mental disability, or source of income.

      Discrimination in Public Accommodation
      A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).


      1. With SCOTUS affirming the 9th Circuit’s ruling and it’s finalization sets precident in Federal Law that discrimination against LGBT falls under Sex discrimination, a Federally protected class, and as such triggers heightened scrutiny.

        This is in combined finding by SCOTUS that the discrimination of LGBT equality violates the principles of the 14th Amendment (Winsor v US [DOMA]).

        Point is, discrimination against LGBT constitutes sex discrimination under federal law, backed by SCOTUS ruling of Winsor based on the 14th Amendment. All states have Public Accommodation laws that have sex as a protected class.

        Sex as a protected class includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

        As such, businesses must comply with public accommodation laws as they are based on Federal Law governed by the 14th Amendment.

        Glad I can give you a Masters Degree education from UT Austin on US Civics.

    2. Jan, I’ll tell you what I told Jerry, just ignore her. People like that are not interested in anyone elses point of view, it’s like talking to a brick wall.She cares nothing of your views or anyone elses. She reminds me of Obama, who does not care what anyone in America thinks, only his views matter.

      1. Chris, I know your personal beliefs are important to you. I get that. But personal beliefs are just that, personal. The First Amendment prevents your beliefs from being imposed upon another as their beliefs as just as valid as your own.

        Attempting to impose your beliefs on a customer in a open to the public business violates Federal and State laws.

        Any service you provide to one class of citizen (hetero) must be accommodated and provided to every class of citizen (same sex).

        If you feel uncomfortable doing such, you can open a members only private club.

        That’s the law.

        Personal beliefs ate your own, and can be exercised in your home, your place of worship, and/or in a business that us a members only private club.

        It isn’t rocket science, it is 6th grade civics.

        Just because you don’t like it or because you think serving a class of people is “icky” does not give ground for ignoring the law and discriminating against someone who’s sexual orientation differs from yours.

        No one is changing your beliefs, no one is forcing you to get a business license for an open to the public business, no one forces you to sign for a business license.

        But when you sign for your Business License, you agree to abide by the public accommodation laws.

        The lady at the bakery violated the law by refusing to provide the services to same sex couples that she provided to heterosexual couples.

        For that there is no excuse.

        so I am waiting, you have yet to state, out of all your posts, a point of view that can rationally explain why she shouldn’t have to follow the law. She thinks gays are “icky”. She said that in court. That is her reason for discrimination, and based it on her Christian Belief, when Christ commanded us not to Judge, Forgive, Treat others as we want to be treated, and love one another unconditionally.

        Where is her grounds besides “they are icky”? Where is your point of view. I gave you Bible, Federal, and State, where’s your point of view, your reason, your facts?

      2. you’tr right, rather thought so in note to Jerry. but thought I’d try something different.

        1. You asked for Oregon’s Public Accommodation Law, I posted it above with link. This is the laws the lady agreed to when she signed to receive her business license.

          Typical you would dismiss the very item you requested someone to provide. Evidence and facts don’t matter to you, do they?

Back to top button