Comedians all have their own shtick and some are edgy and say jokes for shock value. A lot of times their observational humor pokes fun at the ridiculous P.C. liberal authoritarian culture that goes so far to be the thought police everywhere they go. However, the raunchy, vulgar and taboo nature of the particular comedian is always something that anyone willing to shell out TicketMaster prices to see are well aware of. Sometimes the crass and irreverent jokes made at the expense of questionable cultural topics appeal to fans who see the levity as a catharsis from the liberal culture that never ceases to lay blame on society for whatever their perceived grievance of victimhood is that week. But the audacity people have to not only take offense from an artistic bit by a professional comedian, but then rather than removing themselves, they interrupt the show to scold the performer who is there to get laughs not protests. They escalate the shaming making everyone feel awkward which eventually ruins the night for everyone present. All in a self-righteous display of virtue signalling while arrogantly hijacking the show to make themselves the star on centerstage. I have been to 4 comedy shows where this has happened, not to mention the times I see it happen on TV. You almost get the feeling they think that they are on a sting operation laying low for just the right time to foist their over-inflated self-serving sanctimonious moralizing into the lives of fans that merely showed-up to escape the over sensitive crybabies who spend their existence seeking out the next thing to be offended over. They continue the crusade by going home and blasting the performer all over the Internet before they call and complain to the theater and send numerous hate emails to the comedian.

There are a few things to realize between the guy kicking a MAGA hat wearing customer out of his bar, and the refusal and referral of a service due to the matter being a violation of your religious ethics.

First of all: I'm a libertarian and if the bar belongs to the guy who hated the MAGA hat being worn in his place of business, then he absolutely has the right to decide who he does business with and who is welcome on his private property. He doesn't even need to give him a reason why, just GET OUT! The customer isn't entitled to service at this guy's bar, a transaction in the free market requires both parties to consent, and if he is not welcome on the premises he is then trespassing. Now, having said that...assuming this unwelcome MAGA customer wasn't causing a disturbance, being rude or disrespectful or creating any other type of hostile situation, the move to kick this guy out for personal political feelings over a customer's hat is kind of a dick move...just because he was within his rights to refuse service to whom ever he wants, doesn't make it right or justified.

Now pivoting to the Christian baker that refused to make a 1) WEDDING CAKE for a 2)LESBIAN WEDDING when it is NO SECRET that the CHRISTIAN BIBLE HAS FOR OVER 2000 YEARS TAUGHT THAT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS REBELLION AGAINST GOD, and by extension a homosexual marriage (since marriage is the permanent monogamous union between one man and one woman both making an oath to each other and to God) The baker then knowing that she would be using the fruits of her labor to contribute support for such an event that she knew would be displeasing to God refused. When she had refused after clearly stating it was a violation of her religious beliefs and not because of a petty reason like that of the bar owner, she then to be helpful, offered numerous referrals to other bakers that would gladly provide a cake. The very fact that she extended all the help she could shows her professionalism and shows that she wasn't boiling with homophobic contempt for the customers being lesbian. However, it then became apparent that the couple wasn't interested in locking down a cake for their special day, they sued under the pretense that they WERE ENTITLED TO THE TRANSACTION AT HER PLACE OF BUSINESS WITHOUT HER CONSENT. Rather than throw them off of her property, which like the bar owner, she had every right to do, she had to endure being soaked on a lawsuit judgment against her, which led to closure of her business, and be told by a judge of the law that he wasn't going to abide by the Constitution that he swore to uphold which clearly prohibits the law from forcing a citizen to act in violation of their religious beliefs.(1st Amend) She also had to experience the unethical extortion by the government to pay the couple damages which implicitly was saying SHE IS COMPELLED TO GIVE CONSENT TO CONDUCT A TRANSACTION AT HER PRIVATELY FORMERLY OWNED BUSINESS . The dick move in this case, the couple, being so proud of themselves, took a victory lap, by reporting to the media their triumph in successfully wielding the strong arm of illicit government coercion to bring a local baker to her knees on top of the shambles of what was formerly her livelihood. But hey at least they had an all expense paid honeymoon to celebrate.

Romans 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Let's go through what is going on here with what Paul is conveying:

First observation-This is about God getting mad (For the wrath of God [orge] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...(v.18)[the Greek word 'orge' means anger]

Second observation: There is a specific progression that leads to God's "orge"of anger...

(v.18) They suppress the truth in unrighteousness

(v.25) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator.

(v.24) God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...

(v.26) They "exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural."

(v.32) They encouraged others to do the same.

(v.18) Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them...they are worthy of death (v.32)...they are without excuse (v.20)

This is a clear condemnation in the New Testament of homosexual behavior by the Apostle Paul right in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on general revelation. He is NOT speaking about life in the Greco-Roman culture and their peculiar local aberrations, idols, and temple prostitution as some have claimed.

Again, Paul's words he used to describe the behavior....

An impurity and dishonoring to the body (v.24)

A degrading passion that's unnatural (v.29)

An indecent act and an error (v.27)

Not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v.28)

There is only one way you can miss this...and that is if you are in total rebellion to God.

According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against God. According to (v.32) it's rooted in direct, willful, aggressive rebellion against God--true of any Christian defending his homosexual behaviors.

In verse (v.26) For this reason I gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire for one another. So the word "function"...The Greek word kreesis, is used only twice in the NT. Kreesis is translated "use, relations, functions, especially of sexual intercourse."

So the word meant the biological natural sexual function of men and women's bodies. Men were not built to function sexually with other men. Natural desires, go with natural functions that the body was biologically built for. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex for the unnatural function is what Paul calls a degrading passion.

Conclusion: One could argue that the Bible is wrong on its teaching on homosexuality, but there is no mistaking what is being said here in Romans. It takes an impressive twisting of rationalization coupled with denial to actually attempt to explain that one away.

Per the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... For the government to prevent them from praying they would be guilty of prohibiting the free exercise of their religious faith,

No it isn't sexist that women aren't doing construction. There is nothing prohibiting a woman from becoming a construction worker. She also has the choice not to do that job most likely because it is very labor intensive, and it is a very hyper-masculine male dominated work environment which can make women crewman feel uncomfortable. The fact that women have the option to or not to be construction workers is the point. Just because we don't see a symmetrical workforce of male to female doesn't point to sexism.