Gay couple demands new law to FORCE Christian business to prepare their taxes!!

A couple in Indiana is demanding that somebody somewhere pass a law to FORCE Christian businesses to do their damn taxes!!!

From ABC News:

A newlywed same-sex couple in Russiaville, Indiana, were turned away by a tax preparer due to her Christian religious beliefs.

Samantha Brazzel told ABC News that her wife, Bailey Brazzel, had employed Nancy Fivecoate, owner of Carter Tax Service, to file her taxes for the past four years.

“I had gone with Bailey last year and she introduced me as her girlfriend and nothing was said, so we didn’t anticipate any problems,” Brazzel explained.

This year was different.


Once Fivecoate realized they were filing jointly this year as a married couple, she denied Brazzel service due to her Christian religious beliefs.

“We were both pretty stunned,” Brazzel said. “Nancy said we weren’t the first couple she’s turned away, because she believes marriage is between a man and a woman.”

I have no idea why a gay couple is demanding that Christians reluctantly do their taxes, but that’s what they want dammit!!


Bailey and Samantha Brazzel said that they would really like to see new laws in place to protect same-sex couples.

“We shouldn’t be able to be turned away or kicked out of places just because of who we’re married too,” Samantha Brazzel said.


“The LGBT want respect for their beliefs, which I give them,” Fivecoate said in her statement. “I did not say anything about their lifestyle.” “That is their choice. It is not my choice. Where is their respect for my beliefs?” she asked.

Well that’s stupid, especially when the lady was respectful and told them where else they could go to have their taxes done:

Fivecoate has since issued a statement to ABC affiliate WRTV in Indianapolis, saying, “I am a Christian and I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I was very respectful to them. I told them where I thought she might be able to get her taxes prepared.”

Not good enough for the fascist LGBTQ mob.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

327 thoughts on “Gay couple demands new law to FORCE Christian business to prepare their taxes!!

  1. “Bailey and Samantha Brazzel said that they would really like to see new laws in place to protect same-sex couples.”

    From what do they need protection, exactly? It does not seem as if they were ever in any physical danger.

  2. A paid preparer must sign the return. I assume this preparer feels that to call these two women “married” is a lie. So she feels like she can’t truthfully sign it. They should find another paid preparer, or do the return themselves.

  3. Ok, the baker was right to not bake for a ceremony, but taxes? Come, on the tax preparer is way out of bounds here. It detracts from REAL religious objection issues. Let’s admit that our side screwed this one up. Prepare the taxes and move on.

    1. Not at all. I know a doctor who won’t take homosexual patients because their lifestyle in purposefully unhealthy. He also refuses to take smokers. Businesses have a right to implement a morals clause.

    2. I have fired clients just because I don’t like them. I don’t work with difficult people. And, I certainly don’t keep clients that I think will sue me. The tax preparer should just have told them that she couldn’t help them this year and not discussed the reason. You don’t actually have to respond to everyone.

  4. It’s rather EVIDENT that there are no capitalist, forward thinking gays – otherwise they would have seen the market for all kind of gay services – really, who wouldn’t want to be known as “The Gay CPA”! It’s not about living a “normal” life, it’s about FORCING YOU to live THEIR ABnormal life!

  5. Find someone else to our taxes and quit looking for a payday. Earn your money with honest hard work not a snowflake attitude.

    1. This isn’t a lawsuit with hope of financial gain. It’s an activist act wanting Congressional action to force their agenda by law.

  6. Go to H&R Block; I am sure they will be happy to prepare and file your taxes. Walmart has tax preparer booths in the stores now too.

  7. Let me offer what might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the business should be required to do the taxes for these ladies. Let me explain.

    I am a Christian and support the right of people not to do anything to violate their faith. A gay couple forcing a bakery to make a wedding cake is directly requiring that bakery to participate in (and implicitly affirm) a sinful act. Preparing taxes has nothing to do with that.

    Consider that if a criminal approached an accountant and demanded that they prepare his taxes, the accountant would be within his rights (if he were a Christian) to say that doing so would cause him to affirm and support sinful acts. And it would be right for the accountant to refuse to do the criminal’s taxes.

    Presumably, these ladies are not criminals and are not asking the accountant to do anything illegal. They’re just asking to have their taxes done. And this is a morally neutral act (if anything, it’s a morally upstanding act because these ladies are trying to comply with the law). The accountant in this case has no leg to stand on because nothing about their Christian convictions is being violated. They are not affirming anything sinful by preparing their taxes.

    Honestly, I’m surprised at those on here who would support a Christian refusing to do these taxes. It cheapens the times when genuine Christian beliefs are being attacked as in the case of a baker being required to make a wedding cake.

    Scoop, I’d encourage you to take a step back and reconsider whether this is something that you, as a presumed Christian, should oppose. I don’t think you should. I don’t think Christ would either.

    1. I would be willing to bet these two looked for a Christian to do their taxes do they could whine about it if they refused.

      1. Probably. But it doesn’t change the fact that it should be a non-issue for the accountants. They shouldn’t care (or need to know) the sexual orientation of their clients.

    2. “I am a Christian and support the right of people not to do anything to violate their faith.”

      The rest of your post is how the government should violate the accountant’s faith and force her to service the homosexual couple. Make up your mind. You either support religious liberty or you don’t!

      1. No, that’s not what it is. What I said is that this is not and cannot be a violation of the accountant’s faith (unless you can tell me how filing taxes could be a violation of someone’s faith so long as the client is not a criminal). It’s not wise to cry wolf unless there is a reason to. In this case, there is no reason for the accountant not to file their taxes.

        1. Liberals say any religious liberty issue is “crying wolf.” They’ve made the same argument against the cake baker in CO. I’d let the accountant decide what religiously offends her or not and not the government. Unless the couple can meet the undue burden standard, a free society should side with the business owner.


  8. we can pass those laws just as soon as laws are passed to protect conservative content on twitter, google and facebook.

    how about that?

  9. She should have said something like she was just taking on too much of a workload. And wouldn’t have time to do their taxes for them. By introducing your religious beliefs to this you’re setting yourself up for lawsuits.

        1. Choosing against providing a service to someone is discrimination, whether you think it is justified or not.

          1. If I choose not to accept more work as a tax preparer because I’m working 14 hours a day now, is that also discrimination? Or, do you think that I am a slave and required to work because I offer services to the public?

      1. What discrimination? It’s my business, built with my hard work and money, I’ll serve anyone I choose to serve. I wouldn’t hire anyone who had tats or a bunch of metal stuck on their faces, I wouldn’t serve any “married” gay people either. My business, my rules. You don’t like it go somewhere else. That’s called your right to choose! Just like I have my right to choose.

            1. Correct, if I’m providing a service to the public, then I have no right to choose against anyone based on any recognized ground of discrimination. Otherwise, I can do what I like within the law. This stuff isn’t rocket science.

                1. *sigh* This really isn’t a contentious point, and it really isn’t rocket science. I’m just stating to you what the law is. You’re not allowed to discriminate (choose) against one group when providing a service to the public, but anyone can choose what business they go to. Neither you nor I is the arbiter of rights.

      2. To avoid a b.s lawsuit from the gay mafia because they’re too mentally weak to suck it up and go somewhere else? Yup. Seperation of church and state works both ways.

          1. Me personally, I’ll take your money as long as your not a pedo, animal abuser, or anti-2A. Some people have a stricter criteria. Part of being human is learning that life is full of disappointments, and that some people won’t like you whether there’s a valid reason or not. Don’t make time for those people, just move on. But when you use anti-discrimination laws as a weapon against a single merchant rather than going somewhere else, you’re as big a dick as they are. Endorse merchants who have the same values as you. Problem solved.

      3. She shouldn’t lie but she can just say that she won’t be able to help them this year. You don’t actually have to give a reason for your actions. You don’t have an obligation like that. Some people want to explain but it’s liberating when you realize that you don’t have to participate in that. Your obligation is to yourself.

  10. I don’t think new laws are needed. The existing law addresses this situation. It’s long-established that if you provide a service to the public, you have to take the public as they come. You can’t make black people sit at the back, and you can’t refuse to do gay people’s taxes.

    1. Those laws are based upon refusing individuals due to their race, creed or color, not their behavior.

            1. No, but so are all derangements (murderers, rapists, child molesters, arson etc) it’s not problematic unless acted upon.

              1. I can see the problem if the examples you give are acted upon. But there is no logical flow from those things to saying some people should never have the same kind of relationship as everybody else can: a consensual intimate relationship with an unrelated adult with whom there is mutual attraction.

                You haven’t made an argument, and your use of ‘derangement’ is misplaces and presumably meant to be pejorative.

                1. Not at all, it correctly identifies the mental state of those individuals claiming that orientation.

                  As to it simply being a harmless relationship between two consenting adults, it is biblically forbidden and many practicing Christians acknowledge that fact.

                2. And many Christians (the ones that comply with biblical principles like loving thy neighbor, equality, and not judging others) do not have a problem with their fellow human beings in same-sex relationships.

                3. Many alleged Christians defy the lord and do so at their own peril.

                  Some prefer not to suffer the lords wrath.

                4. You’re right, many alleged Christians do defy the principles of Christianity in order to use it to bolster their personal prejudices against their fellow people.

                5. Nice try, loving thy neighbor and aiding or abetting their immoral actions are two completely different things. The Bible is absolutely clear on the subject of sexual sin.

                6. Many people Christian or otherwise disagree with you. There is a reason that your views are at odds with the laws of western society and the culmination of centuries of judicial thought. That reason isn’t some conspiracy theory, it’s simply that you are in the wrong.

                7. Do you find the Bible unclear on its overarching principles of loving thy neighbor, equality and not judging others?

                8. Judge others by the same measure you wish to be judged, love thy neighbor by helping them away from sin. Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean look the other way!

                  Attempting to rationalize immoral behavior does not make it any more acceptable to the righteous.

                9. Do you find the Bible unclear on its overarching principles of loving thy neighbor, equality and not judging others?

  11. I despise the malicious , divisive, and agenda driven tactics of the LBGT queers…but the religious beliefs of the accountant are irrelevant. She is discriminating. She is wrong. I’m surprised that any constitutional conservative would defend the accountant.
    It’s no different than if she had said, “I don’t serve Jews.”

    1. She’s not discriminating because of race, she’s refusing to offer her services because their behavior goes against her religious beliefs. There is a huge difference. And just like the Christian baker, she is being forced by the state to “care”. We will be made to obey the dictates of the LGBTQ degenerates. Nope!

    2. Jewish women don’t lick girl pussy, and don’t force others to agree with their beliefs.

      Lesbians do indeed lick pussy and insist that others celebrate their pussy licking preference.

      Same thing only in an alternate universe.

  12. I can see why a Christian business won’t do cakes and stuff like that but this is just silly. This isn’t good for business and I think a dumb move but the gaystapo is as usual overboard.

  13. Just the LGBT Agenda demanding Indiana pass laws similar to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to put LGBT Rights Above First Amendment Religious Freedom Rights. when the SCotUS goes half ass defending the First Amendment like the Colorado Baker (or slavery) it comes back to bite all Americans in the ass.

  14. Go to H&R Block; I am sure they will be happy to prepare and file your taxes. Walmart has tax preparer booths in the stores now too.

  15. Meat curtain munching couple refuse to patronize Muslim Accountants.
    There… fixed it.
    Why do homosexuals discriminate against islam?

  16. Their are MANY LGBTQ CPAs around, even in Indiana, so this is about forcing others to accept something that is against their beliefs, which is unconstitutional. When LGBTQs try to force their belief systems on others, they are supported in courts; however, when women like Ms. Fivecoate refrain from doing something because it is against HER belief system, she is damaged for it, which is unconstitutional.

    1. Are you seriously trying to say that homosexuality is a belief system? What other “belief systems” have you got for us? Heterosexuality? Left-handedness? blue-eyedness?
      The belief system that is being forced here, is being forced upon this married couple.

        1. Nope. You’re thinking of principles like equality and liberty. These are principles of free societies and of Christianity and are in no way specific to LGBT people. You need to treat LGBT people (and everyone else) with equality and not impinge on their liberty without justifiable reasons.

          1. Here’s the LGBT belief system:

            1) Sexual orientation is absolutely inborn.
            2) Sexual orientation can never, ever be changed.
            3) Anyone claiming to have changers sexual orientation is lying to you, or to themselves, and must be bullied
            4) Because we insist it can never be changed, we must make it against the law to try to change it.
            5) The sex you’re born as, however, is fluid.
            6) Men can become women, women can become men.
            7) A man who becomes a woman is just as much a woman as your mother ever was.
            8) a woman who becomes a man is just as much a man as your father ever was.
            9) There is absolutely nothing essential to having a mother or having a father. A person of the same sex can easily fulfill the roles that traditionally and biologically fell to the parent of the other sex.
            10) Any scientific research that boosts our above beliefs is lofty, handed out by god on high (who doesn’t exist) and can never be questioned.
            11) Any scientific research that challenges our above beliefs is forged, motivated by evil intent, and can never be cited.
            12) There is absolutely no reason anyone could ever question any of our above dictuts, unless they are an evil bigot, probably religiously motivated. No one can ever have a friendly disagreement with us. it’s all or nothing.

            Sums it up well, doesn’t it?

              1. Mostly my observation, and a little deduction for what the most politically expedient positions are.

                For example, having sexual orientation be inflexible is vital if you want to say you’re just like a race. Everyone knows blacks can’t change the color of their skin, nor does anyone choose what race they were born. If sexual orientation was widely considered a chosen life style, like say cigarettes or tattoos, then it fails as a civil rights unit.

                Similarly, if it was possible to change sexual orientation via therapy, that would lead into a similar dilemma. So such therapy must be discredited, true or false.

                If you see it as a political movement, these conclusions make perfect sense.

                1. Before I answer, can I ask why you ignored everything in my post to resort to such a predictable question? And if you ignored everything in my previous post, why should I respond to yours?

                2. I don’t see it. But regardless…

                  I decided to be heterosexual rather than the bisexual transvestite I had been living in. I had a yearning to be a woman for — who know why. Once I did, I found it was easy to get attention from men, when I went to clubs that catered to that. I was lonely enough, and being flattered: “Oh, you’re so beautiful” was arousing enough, even if I never thought of men in that way before. I could have said no, of course, but when one was available and the other seemed unaccessible, I went for some time with what was available.

                  But then as I was mediating between the two, a good friend of mine advised me: “If you want to end up with a woman, you probably don’t want to be dating boys. Women will not be comfortable with a man who has spent a long time in homosexual relationships.”

                  I ultimately wanted to marry a woman. So I tuned out on dating boys and focused on women. Today, I’m married to a woman, father of two beautiful daughters, and the urge to crossdress has largely disappeared.

                  If I listened to the LGBT activists, they would have told me that I was homosexual or bisexual permanently, that I probably should get a sex change, that the urges would never disappear, and there was no way for the kind of relationship I ended up in.

                  My lived experience demonstrates all these propaganda talking points to be false.

                  Glad you asked?

        1. If you think homosexual attraction is something you could learn or choose, you’re definitely not a straight person.

        2. Yes, they don’t like it when I tell them that I was born an alcoholic, but nobody forced me to suck on the bottle. I think that it’s the word “suck” that gets them.

      1. Oh get off your self-righteous bandstand and learn how to comprehend what you read! Many LGBTQs believe they are “more equal” than everyone else, thanks to misguided people like you who believe that tripe. When one group is given priority over another as a protected group, nobody is free.

        1. Or maybe they just want equality, like being able to go to a business without being turned away, or being able to marry their partner without being told they can’t because of someone else’s personal religious beliefs, or not being beaten to death for merely existing, or not being exterminated en masse in gas chambers.

          You’re fighting the bad fight Charli. You’re one of the bad guys.

        2. That they demand laws be passed to compel someone to work in favor of their “equality” while against their target’s rights is tyranny, any way you slice it.

  17. These women are not nice nor are they kind. I am really sick of people claiming they are victims, when in actuality, they are exploiting their gayness/victim hood for profit and gains. There are so many accountants to choose from and no one should ever be “forced” to do something for anyone. This country is becoming overrun with victims. Helpless, hapless victims! Why would anyone want to appear weak and helpless? Grow the heck up and stop all the whining!

  18. Are we slaves? Because slaves are forced to work. Free people are not forced to work. This is ridiculous. And I personally wouldn’t care – I would do the taxes, but I would never force someone. I have been discriminated against a few times because I am not white and I am a woman. BFD. I have moved on and found people happy to do business with me. I think this country is too darn lawsuit crazy.

  19. Wrong title for this article. It should read:
    “Grotesque Couple Seeking Fame/Attention Lawsuit Frivolously Persecuting Christians”

  20. I can understand a baker not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, but this seems to be a bit of a stretch. What about loving your enemies? What about rendering unto Caesar? It is the law in Indiana. God is pretty specific about practicing homosexuality, but I don’t recall anything about prohibiting doing business with them. I realize that the Gaystapo may be targeting this business, but I’m not so sure if everyone involved is not somewhat at fault here.

    1. Still, Ms. Fivecoate should be able to work for, or NOT work for, whomever she wishes. The Gaystapo (love that!!) has endless other choices and can complain about Fivecoate on Yelp, which will no doubt repel some people from hiring her….but this is ridiculous.

    2. I’m thinking she would feel supportive of the sin were she to acknowledge a gay marriage by filing and signing. And I believe God is not OK w/ supporting sin. In fact, there’s scripture regarding speaking out against the sin, and redirecting the sinner to more Christ-like behavior. (Tho I couldn’t point out the verse, sorry)

        1. And she was reformed by Him! I’m not saying we’re not ALL sinners, I’m saying it’s obligation of a Christian to affirm an obviously un-Christian act, and offer redirection.

          1. Instead of refusing the business, it could be an opportunity to spread the gospel. When people ask me for money on the street, I tell them that I’m a former alcoholic and offer to take them to a meeting. Nothing gets rid of them faster.

            1. That’s a great idea. When I see people holding the cardboard signs asking for donations, (especially if I’m out around lunchtime) I just go thru a nearby drivethru; if I’m not short on funds at the time.. buy a burger and take it to them. I refuse to give money to support booze and drug habits.

                1. Dude, you’ve replied to practically every comment in this thread. You’re obviously amped up on something and trying to call Doc out as not being nice because he doesn’t enable panhandlers is some really weak trolling.

                  If you think it’s not nice to refuse helping people in need, there are plenty of people out there for you to go help right now. Instead, you’re here – probably on your expensive computer – trolling.

                2. You don’t know whether or not I help people in need. I certainly don’t make proclamations about getting rid of them.

                  Perhaps all the people who spend their energy marginalizing their fellow human beings who happen to be gay could spend that energy better trying to help others… loving thy neighbor, that sort of thing.

                3. Doc DID offer help, in the form of an offer to take them where they would get that help. And, he said THEY REFUSE his offer. You are spinning.

                4. You’re here wasting time. You obviously aren’t helping anyone in need when you’re trolling internet forums. You obviously feel that trolling internet forums is more important at some point than helping others in need. Bye, troll.

        2. Yes, and Jesus called our every single one of them for their individual sins telling them what they were doing was wrong and that they should cease in whatever sin it was. That’s why He had so many enemies and was eventually crucified. For some reason leaders in power don’t like their authority challenged and people don’t like being told they’re doing things wrong.

            1. Probably a wise thing considering you’re not God incarnate and know everything and that what you are saying is 100% correct without any chance of error. Also knowing you’re not perfect yourself makes a person take pause.

      1. Except that we are all sinners, including Fivecoate…just to play devil’s advocate
        ;-D LOL. I am not sure whatever happened to businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish…she wants to be out some pay for services, that’s her business.

          1. The radicals on the left have gone insane, Doc. There needs to be a special island for them where they find their safe space and bytch to one another to feel better, cuz the rest of us have work to do and lives to lead.

    3. Still, Ms. Fivecoate should be able to work for, or NOT work for, whomever she wishes. The Gaystapo (love that!!) has endless other choices and can complain about Fivecoate on Yelp, which will no doubt repel some people from hiring her….but this is ridiculous.

        1. Agreed, and I am sick of it….lucky for these clowns the majority of Americans are not pounding down their doors demanding services that do not fit their own beliefs….they think they are more “equal” than everyone else.

    4. That was my first take as well. Baking wedding cakes is an art and I can see how you wouldn’t want to make a piece of art celebrating a wedding that you felt was a sin.

      But doing taxes is just rote data entry and you’re not really celebrating anything. Although ultimately I think that it would be good if businesses had a more libertarian “my business, my rules” legal environment in this country – not doing a gay couple’s taxes is hardly the hill that I’d choose to die on.

    5. We are the ones who always have to do the bending Doc. Our beliefs are never held up as being equal to their beliefs. We are being forced to accept what we believe is perverted behavior, the state is in effect taking sides using the Bill of Rights as their weapon against us.

      (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof), They are perfectly fine with the first part of that sentence, but never, ever do you see liberals, statists, LGBTQXYZLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZHMLOPABCEFCDQURALMINTUSBBBAAACUNDLQPRSRNIL, did I miss any? even mention the second part.

      I’m getting damned tired of always being forced to care, or forced to accept, I don’t care what those degenerates do to themselves, just let me live my life and stay clear of me and my family. If I was the tax preparer I might just do their taxes for them, but I guarantee they’d never come back to me again for tax preparation ;-}

  21. I have no patience for gay extremists any more….maybe the Muslim extremists were right in tossing them from buildings…………sorry but has the gay Nazis ever heard of the word “backlash”?

    1. Sounds as if you are advocating summary executions of your fellow human beings for being gay. And that’s just what the Nazis did.

      1. No…..I am just irritated with their in your face agenda and their promoting their sick lifestyle on young school children.

        I think you have it the other way around…the gay extremists would have no problem in taking out people who disagree with their lifestyle.

        1. One’s sexual orientation isn’t a lifestyle, sick or otherwise, it is a facet of what constitutes us as human beings.

    2. Let’s hope the demonrats’ recurrence of demanding reparations for slavery causes a backlash…to the best of my knowledge, there are NO slaves alive from the civil war, but if their are, I could kick in a buck (even though I, and none of my ancestors to the best of my knowledge, have never been a slave holder!)

  22. They love late term unrestricted, endless abortions because they despise faith and family lifestyle and want all to become gays and lesbians, engage in immoral, disgusting acts. And the Dem leaders become their hero! Pro gays and pro abortions are same thing!

    1. If, for you, it is possible for a straight person to become a gay person, then I’m afraid you’re not straight. Lol.

  23. After the first instance of a restaurant refusing to serve a Trump admin official or MAGA hat-wearing person, the charade about having to serve some LGBTQWERTY is over.

  24. You know you’re not really a victim when you have to invent new ways to be a victim. If they were real victims they wouldn’t have to explain it to everyone. Victimization will never go away when half the country is proud to be “victimized”

    1. They target them. For political gain and big bucks. They could care less about ruining someone’s life and livelihoods. Turbo tax is available as well Aston’s of other tax preparers. Just like cake bakers.

  25. In your face! Bite me, multiple letter whatevers. A black robe made your union – marriage. The majority voted against calling your social contract a marriage. I am getting fed up with the qwertyzzzzz. You take ideas and words and bastardized them.

  26. The Gaystapo strikes again. This isn’t about ‘tolerance’ this is about forced conformity to a Leftist agenda.

    If the tax preparer were a Muslim, you wouldn’t be hearing a word about it..

          1. “I’m sure a Muslim baker would likely bake a cake”

            …. said the guy who didn’t bother to watch the video of Muslim bakers refusing to bake gay wedding cakes.

            Did you not know about this video? It’s been circulating virally for years.

            1. I shouldn’t need to look to extrinsic material because you cannot be bothered to make your comment in full. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

              1. Someone needs to learn what Anecdotal is. If it is on video it isn’t anecdotal. Muslim bakers have indeed refused service. And the same Colorado commission that wants to persecute Christian bakers did nothing about it.

              2. Lots of intellectual dishonesty in just two short sentences. Let’s unpack some.
                1. Not looking at evidence offered is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
                2. The video was hidden camera work going to a bunch of Muslim bakeries. Hardly anecdotal.
                3. Your original claim that “I’m sure a Muslim baker would likely bake a cake.” was based on what, exactly? Statistical evidence of some sort? Of course not.
                4. Journalism like this that uncovers behavior in society rarely approaches statistical rigor – but we use it all the time to at least provide examples when there is a lack of actual statistical evidence.

                The reality is that you’re terrified of the cognitive dissonance that you would have to endure if you came to the realization that your erstwhile political allies, the Muslims, are vehemently opposed to your pro-homosexual political philosophy.

                1. You can make your point in full with reference to your source. But you didn’t do that. It’s absurd for you to expect people to go to extrinsic material on a comment page like this. For example, how about I tell you to go and read the entire body of philosophy, theology and jurisprudence that demonstrates that we should not discriminate against our fellow human beings. Get reading, and let me know when you’re done.

                2. Because spending the rest of one’s life reading without a specific purpose is just like watching a short video that directly disproves your argument.

                  Clearly, you think your simpleton tactics are furthering some end. How that end differs from trolling or just being generally intellectually dishonest, I don’t know and don’t care. Goodbye.

        1. Alcohol and dogs are not recognized grounds for discrimination. Although refusing to take a guide dog for a blind person would discriminate against that person.

      1. Before or after they threw them off rooftops, or in this case, simply stoned
        them to death!

        Nice try, dipstick. You’re connection to reality is nonexistent.

  27. Indiana has a legislature packed with Republicans in the state House and Senate and a Republican governor. That being said they act very weak in comparison to the legislatures in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and a few others. These homosexuals may end up getting what they want because Indiana Republican politicians are easily rattled. They are afraid to go after the murderous abortion industry and tip toe around the edges. They have a dismemberment bill that will easily pass but they should be doing a lot more. Leadership matters and if you are serious about confronting the murderous abortion industry and Homosexual activists you better have strong leaders. Indiana does not. Also looks like Oklahoma legislature is going the same route. Making excuses for not aggressively going after the abortion industry by claiming they’ll lose in Court. In other words, doing the Democrats work for them. Planned Parenthood and the left always go to court. Oklahoma Baptist leaders also wrote a letter against a strong abortion bilI. The same Baptists that rarely speak against abortion from the pulpit and do little to stop the slaughter. If a state is afraid to fight in court then Planned Parenthood and homosexual activists have them right where they want them. Look at the ungodly laws Democrat legislatures are aggressively passing around the country. Scared Republican politicians in Indiana and Oklahoma could learn something from their tenacity.

    Homosexuals know very well Indiana’s Republican governor and Republican politicians scare easily.

  28. I am not seeing why the tax preparer would not just do the taxes. I do not see how it violates her religious beliefs.

    1. Tell me Kram, if a restaurant can refuse to serve somebody, why can’t an accountant turn down business if it violates their beliefs?

      1. A restaurant CAN’T refuse to serve someone unless the violations include everyone. Like they can say, “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.” But they can’t say, “No Blacks, No Gays, etc.”

      2. I don’t believe a restaurant can just wholesale discriminate against an entire group of people based on their race for example. As far as homosexual marriage goes I am not sure.

    2. Doing business with individuals that are actively engaged in immoral activities, especially one that is specifically denounced?

          1. I am not asking if it should be I am trying to figure this one out. I am asking if you know if it legally can or not.

            1. I do no know what laws may be on the books. I would think the results of Hobby Lobby would reinforce rights of conscience.

              1. Well I did find this:

                The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.


                And apparently some states have passed laws to include sexual orientation.

              2. I believe the Hobby Lobby situation had to do with Obamacare requirements to provide some sort of coverage for abortion or something along those lines. I am glad Hobby Lobby won.

                1. Yes, it had to do with Obamacare and mandatory birth control, but I believe the court opinion was more broad in addressing a corporations exemption from regulation the owners religiously object to under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

        1. I would say, “no.” As I said to another, you can say, “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” because that applies to everyone, but you can’t refuse to serve a group, because they’re a minority or gay, etc. Even the cake baker involved in the lawsuit that he finally won offered to bake any other cake, just not a wedding cake. It’s understandable that a business would not want to be involved in an actual wedding because that is a religious ceremony. Filing your taxes is not.

  29. When are Christians going to quit being targets and just tell these intolerant bigots that they have many Muslim customers who would find them and throw them off the nearest rooftop. And in no way would it be Christian to be a part to their death. There, the news media would then have to choose team Muslim or team sameteam.

          1. So you have to get drunk to have fun. You’re a raging drunk who hates the police. Quite the resume you have there.

  30. The legal effect of Social Justice started with the Civil Rights Act and has only become worse year after year.

    It sucks that we as a country needed the Civil Rights Act to get Americans to act like human beings, but in the big picture, I admit it has helped our country progress. On the other hand, as it has evolved to what it is today, we may be experiencing the negative consequences of mixing Social Justice with legal justice.

    Looking at the spirit of the Civil Rights Act, the tax preparer should just do their taxes. She is not a government official or clergy being forced to conduct a marriage which is unbiblical. She is merely preparing tax documents, part of which entails checking a box married. If they are legally married in that state, she is merely reflecting that fact and in no way does that condone the marriage or depict approval in any way.

    Remove the Civil Rights Act and let businesses conduct business as they wish and let the almighty dollar decide how successful or unsuccessfully they become, and now the tax payer can deny them her services and all parties can be on their way.

    In a perfect world, the Civil Rights Act (along with Affirmative Action), would be eliminated as their purpose has been fulfilled. Unfortunately, once something is given, its nearly impossible to take away.

    1. Excellent post. The Civil Rights Act and the anti-discrimination laws of liberal states are being used by minorities to attack business owners and Christians far more than they are being used to protect minorities.

      1. I think the “rule of the land” label was stamped on the Supreme Court ruling too early and will too little of a fight. I understand the premise of “case law”, but do not believe it should be used so broadly to Supreme Court findings. So many aspects of our lives have such diverse factors and intricacies that one ruling on a single case should not be so quickly and widely applied.

        I agree with you and another poster that more laws are needed to protect religious rights and activities.

  31. Her demand might be taken a little more seriously if she took the booger-catcher out of her nose, just sayin’.

    1. Stop reading and commenting on articles about homosexuality then, and there will be less of a market for such articles.

  32. First, you both two nasty women! Second go the H and R Block or Walmart, they do taxes! Dont try and force your nasty lifestyle choice on Christian’s!

    1. None. Even if they got everyone to bow down at their altar, they would find something else to whine about.

    2. Homosexuals won’t be happy until it is legally mandated that homosexual couples must be married in a Christian church.

      1. If you think it’s possible to be recruited into being gay, then you are not straight.

        For many others, sexual orientation emerges naturally during adolescence, so any attempt at recruitment would be futile.

        1. There is probably a genetic component, but choice is involved. I was born an alcoholic, but nobody forced me to suck on the bottle.

                1. I don’t see the comparison you’re making here. The hidden premise in your question is that I have a boyfriend whom I beat.

                2. A quick click to the profile shows a person heavily invested in religious sites, yet not very popular. Me no likey at all!!

        2. Sorry no. I know of a few people and have read of others whose determination of “homosexuality” came after a prolonged period of targeting, and sometimes abuse by homosexuals. The fact that a healthy heterosexual relationship couldn’t seem to happen for some people has also played a part.
          There’s nothing wrong with homosexual attraction, it’s acting on that attraction that turns it into a sin.

          1. Sorry, yes. You don’t know or have read of any such people.

            You also seem to be saying that homosexual people should never have be allowed the same kind of relationship that everyone else is allowed: an intimate consensual relationship with an unrelated adult with whom there is mutual attraction.

            1. I have a childhood friend that was strongly heterosexual and gave it away to any dude asking. But, she has never been very attractive and always overweight and could never find love, until a close friendship with another woman brought acceptance, love, and eventually intimacy.

              1. That’s great that she was able to come to terms with her lesbianism and eventually be open about it. It’s dreadful that society pushed her into having sex outside of her sexual orientation when she was younger, but sadly that is the primitive and barbaric society we still live in. We have a long way to go.

                1. You’re full of crap. This woman practically lived with my family and we considered her another sister. I KNOW what she was….and what she wasn’t.

                2. You don’t sound like a very good sister to this poor wretch, whom you think is fat and ugly and sent out during childhood to have sex with men.

                3. That’s a big presumption of you.

                  As you know from your own experience, human sexual orientation emerges naturally during adolescence.

            2. Actually one of my sister’s best friends was one of the people I was talking about. And, yes, because I believe this life is a journey to a destination that doesn’t allow practicing homosexuals, I want people with same-sex attraction to abstain, just like I want unmarried heterosexuals to abstain so they can also attain Heaven.

        3. Of course it’s possible. People experiment with their sexuality, especially at young ages when they’re still trying to figure out who they are.

          What’s truly harmful is telling anyone who’s ever had same-sex attraction that they must be homosexual, and they can never change. I wonder how many teenagers experimented because they didn’t feel like they fit in, then spent years believing themselves to be homosexual because they were told it was inborn and unchangeable.

          Contrary to the mythology of sexual orientation, there are people who believed themselves to be homosexual, but then left it behind.

          Just as there are transexuals who “transitioned” to the opposite sex, and realized years later that they were not happy that way, and that the whole “transgender” thing was just a symptom of other mental problems.

  33. “You will be made to care.” Should they really trust a company (Christian or otherwise) to do their taxes for them – error-free – if the courts MAKE the company prepare their taxes against the company’s will? It’s like having the fear that a disgruntled server will spit in your food.

    This sort of activist BS is evil to say the least!

    1. A test-case could set a precedent that business cannot, say, put up a sign saying “no blacks”, or “no Jews” or “no gays”, and then businesses would know to comply.

      But this sort of thing was settled in the 1960s, and settling it at even that relatively recent date is a stark reminder of how primitive and barbaric we are as a species. That the issue is raising its ugly head again shows that we haven’t come very far.

  34. The Christian tax preparer is probably going to lose, especially since she’s not participating in anything related to the marriage. I don’t know that calculating numbers is comparable to having to wed them or take pictures. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect sexual preference as far as a I know, but it’s hard telling when you consider how liberals twist it to a living, breathing document. I suppose it will come down to what laws the state has to protect them.

    1. There isn’t a lawsuit. Indiana does not recognize sexual orientation as a protected class and neither does the Federal legal system (yet). It is making its way into Federal government departments and policies though.

      The gist of the article is that they are trying to drum up support to get a law passed so that sexual orientation is a protected class in Indiana. I say move to a different state…

      1. Lol, you’re right. I instinctively assumed this was focused around a lawsuit.

        I think that eventually it’s going to be a protected “class” in all of the states. I’m not saying it should be, but I can see the writing on the wall.

    2. I think the tax preparer is protesting submitting tax info (filing as a married couple) that she believes is not correct. In her eyes, these people are not married. Her religious beliefs preclude her from filing this misinfo.

      1. Except as a professional the “correct info” is what the state deems to be the correct info, not what the tax preparer believes should be the correct info. I’m not siding with the girls because there are plenty of places for them to get whatever help they need, but I think they will win.

        1. But the preparer is afforded her religious belief by religious freedom, and it’s her belief it’s false info.

              1. I know, but all she’s doing is recording a number. I think that’s a stretch because even businesses that would be required to directly participate are losing some of these cases. I believe Indiana is fairly conservative so she might prevail.

                I can understand gays wanting to be treated like everyone else, except in today’s day and age there isn’t a problem of them not being able to do whatever they want to do. If someone doesn’t want to bake you a cake then go down the effing street and have someone else bake it. Same with taxes. Forcing it on everyone when there are very easy alternatives is quite irritating.

                1. Yep, absolutely are free to do whatever they want. Including harassing people that don’t see them as married. Including, having a freaking parade down Main St. USA every year, proclaiming their warped sexual perversion as if it were their very identity. Unreal.

                2. I have to back up here. I assumed there was a lawsuit but I guess there’s not. The tax preparer can do whatever she pleases for now.

                3. I don’t have a problem with gay people any more. I still don’t agree with it but I have learned to accept it. A person very close to me has turned lesbian after an abusive marriage to a man and now she’s afraid of men. She’s with another woman now because she wants to be loved and not abused. However, she doesn’t push it on anyone and she understands that some people don’t conform to it.

                  It’s when they target Christians and businesses that really pi**es me off. Like the tax preparer said…she respected the girls beliefs but the girls are not respecting hers.

                4. I also have a gay friend and a gay family member. They are very respectful of my feelings about ssm and they also know that I love them and wish only happiness for them. It is possible to have positive relationships.

                5. Same here…have had several friends who were gay, (supposedly for a multitude of reasons, none of my biz). They were not ones to flaunt it in my face, or even exude an air of ‘it’s my identity, it’s who I am’..They were modest, they were not exhibitionistic, the way the ones in the news are.

                6. Lol, that’s why they will never be on the news. They don’t push the narrative and they don’t make waves.

                7. I’m kind of with you on this. I can understand the baker not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, but this is a bit different. God is specific about practicing homosexuality, but nowhere does it say in the Bible not to do business with them. In fact, it says to love your enemies. OTOH, there used to be signs up in businesses saying that they could refuse business to anyone. So, I don’t know.

                8. Yep. She’s calculating numbers for the state basically, and the state recognizes them as married so she has to be willing to calculate the numbers for what the state says they owe. I don’t see this anywhere near like baking a cake. Filing taxes really has nothing to do with the relationship of the couple or participating in it. Looking for a number in a column for what the state recognizes them as is not participating.

                9. I have taken the gay couple’s side. Not because they are gay, but because the facts of the case IMO don’t favor the tax preparer. That doesn’t mean I agree with same sex marriage, lol.

                10. I have taken the gay couple’s side. Not because they are gay, but because the facts of the case IMO don’t favor the tax preparer. That doesn’t mean I agree with same sex marriage, lol.

                11. I won’t take the couple’s side because they are attempting to force their agenda on someone else.

                12. Oh no…I misspeak. I have previously said that I don’t like them forcing their agenda on others. I’m merely taking their side on whether or not this qualifies for a religious exemption. Do I think they should push it or sue? No. The tax lady told them other places they can go. Just go down the street and have the taxes done.

                13. I won’t take the couple’s side because they are attempting to force their agenda on someone else.

                14. Sounds like your friend actually has an emotional problem rather than being truly lesbian. I suspect that’s the underlying condition for most. And now states are preventing them from getting proper treatment.

                15. Yep, absolutely are free to do whatever they want. Including harassing people that don’t see them as married. Including, having a freaking parade down Main St. USA every year, proclaiming their warped sexual perversion as if it were their very identity. Unreal.

        2. According to the article, the tax preparer did the one woman’s taxes I think knowing she was gay. So it wasn’t “homophobia” but a dispute over ssm.

  35. Oh there’s a REASON they prey on Christian businesses to do their business, whether it be a bakery, tax preparer, or clothier for wedding attire; they want to force Christians to take their religious beliefs and stick it. Because to them, laws referencing religious freedom are interpreted as hampering THEIR perverse interpretation of ‘marriage’. They simply can’t just go off and do their own thing, w/o taking a few Christians down for good measure. How DARE you all not see things MY way?

  36. get smart, if that is possible, and prepare your own……it should not be that difficult for a couple of snowflakes like you.,,,,but on second thought maybe it would be.

    1. They don’t want to. They want to cause a scene for someone who doesn’t see eye to eye w/ them in their perverse lifestyle.

  37. This is where I blame Mike Pence for backing down from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The left will never stop attacking Christians because their heathen beliefs define who they are. They will do everything they can to force us to submit.

  38. I’m a live and let live type of person for the most part. I draw the line when one group, in this case the homosexuals, try to forcible impose their beliefs on another group like Christians. To the homosexuals I’d say – live your like as you choose; just don’t force me to embrace your lifestyle, and don’t attack my right to believe as I see fit.

    1. Remember years ago when we used to talk about “alternative lifestyles?” These people don’t want to be alternative anymore. They want traditional values to be the alternative, if at all.

      1. Taqqiya. Talking about open-mindedness and tolerance was a useful ploy when they were politically weak. Now they figure they have the whip hand, and are more into domination.

        Exactly the same way that Muslims typically call for tolerance when they’re a small minority, but demand accommodation as their numbers grow.

        Which might explain why Muslims and gay activists get along so well, even though sharia Islam demands the death of homosexuals.

  39. I’m sure there is someone that will prepare their taxes. Or just use Turbo tax. Easy, peasy. But no, they want to make a stink. This is life in the USA today.

    1. The tax preparer gave these two several referrals. They weren’t interested because their objective was to cause a ruckus.

  40. Weird, I never give my business to someone who doesn’t want it. It’s a free country and they can get their taxes done at other places and even given referrals. The victimhood game is over….they are not a victims they are Christian hating activists.

  41. Off the top of my head I can think of two professions I wouldn’t demand they preform a service against their will. 1) The person doing my Taxes, errr, big math mistakes that result in an audit and a Heart Surgeon that’s about to cut open my chest.

    1. Preparing my food (like baking a cake). Note that there has been NO reports of mischief in this area. You think if the shoe was on the other foot the Left would show the same integrity?

      1. I waited tables in college at a steak & seafood restaurant. While I never did it myself, some of the wait staff would do some gross stuff to the food of ‘really nasty, rude customers’.

  42. I realize these persons are obviously trying to set up Christian business for lawsuits and I can understand someone not wanting to sanction homosexual marriage, such as baking a wedding cake or providing flowers. But I don’t understand why someone feels that extends to doing someone’s taxes. Even the cake bakers didn’t have a problem baking any OTHER cake for them, just not a wedding cake.

    1. I believe the issue at hand is that they are now filing jointly as ‘married’. The preparer, in her religious beliefs, does not feel they are ‘married’; that would make her culpable of filing false info, according to what she believes.

      1. It’s not a lie under IN law. Render unto Caesar, right? God is very specific about engaging in homosexual behavior, but says nothing about doing business with them.

      2. It’s not a lie under IN law. Render unto Caesar, right? God is very specific about engaging in homosexual behavior, but says nothing about doing business with them.

    2. Any business should have the right to refuse service. Leftist websites refuse service to us for any number of reasons. Saying that, she clearly did not believe it was right to file papers for people saying they were married when it goes against her Christian beliefs, and frankly when it is spelled out as an abomination in the Bible.

    3. I don’t think it should be an issue either, though in a sense it is no different from the Christian bakers and photographers. They are all matters of personal conviction because there is nothing in the Christian faith that forbids doing business with sinners. If that were true then the clientele would be awfully small, but I digress.

      The real issue is should a private business be allowed to refuse service. If no, then they are essentially indentured servants. I tend to err on the side they should be allowed to refuse service no matter the reason. Of course that also means a business could deny someone who is say a Conservative or Trump supporter. If that’s the price of freedom then so be it. Let the free markets sort it out and decide if they should remain open for business or not.

        1. Really? I’m curious. As a person who is well versed, I can’t seem to recall a single verse that refers to “association with the sexually immoral” and I do not mean verbatim, but in general. Now it does not say we should not be buddy buddy, but doing business with sinners, even sexually immoral is not the same thing.

          Perhaps I missed it in the Greek?

            1. As Christians we are not supposed to be an island unto ourselves, in fact to spread the gospel message requires rubbing elbows with sinners. Remember, even Jesus ate with sinners. And of course in our daily life it is impossible not to associate with nonbelievers. It does warn us about fellowship with darkness, but fellowship is on a much deeper level than just interacting with unbelievers. So there’s a difference here between having a business transaction with sinners, and having fellowship with them.

  43. This is why the majority of voters in more than 30 states voted to keep marriage between man and a woman, as it has been since the beginning of time.
    I wish Trump and the Republicans would have done something on this issue but it seems like they gave up the will to fight (if they ever did care in the first place).

    1. What are they to do. The Supremes ruled on this. They can’t outlaw it unless you are talking about some sort of protection for those exercising their religious beliefs.

  44. More sick individuals DEMANDING we “adjust” our beliefs.
    To friggen lazy to drive/walk down the street to another tax preparer.

    This woman was gracious & accommodating, however Not good enough for the alphabet weirdos.

  45. Not sure I’d want to force anyone to work for me who didn’t want to do it.
    Maybe I’m just into self-preservation, but the thought of a baker spitting into the frosting, or an accountant transposing some numbers…

    1. “Not sure I’d want to force anyone to work for me”

      Well that used to be called “slavery” but now its called “equality”.

      All people used to be equal, but plantation owners were more equal than the rest. Likewise now gay couples are more equal than Christians.

  46. Indiana is one of the reddest states in the Midwest. I’m not sure how this will play out. Most red states seem to roll over these days because the legislatures are full of Democrats who ran as Republicans in order win election.

    Meanwhile, you just know they wouldn’t go across town to a Muslim tax service.

  47. Only if and when the “victims” who bring these inane suits loses and must pay all legal fees. Then I guarantee they will find another establishment to do the job.

  48. All business owners no matter who should reserve the right to refuse business for any reason they want.

  49. Oh for Pete’s Sake! Will this madness ever end?

    The two women politely got other referrals. Why can’t they respect this business owner and let us live in peace?

Comments are closed.