Presume best intentions and grabbing an opp. to promote political aims, Joanne Lockwood -- see Premier News and link to this post -- asks Nigel, for a print job. Who might as well/should have/why not eh?, stated upfront; doesn't work for anyone too far from his sexual and social ethics.

He believes, people predominantly choosing all they are in this area, and "marginalize (or indeed discriminate against) Christians in their workplaces and other parts of society if they do not subscribe to it".

He goes on to say in the response to Joanne's request for a quote ; "Although I am quite sure you have no intention of marginalizing Christians it would weigh heavily upon me if through my own work I was to make pressure worse for fellow Christians."

RT reporting, 'refused to take the contract because it would “make pressure worse” on Christians who he believes are being forced to accept transgender people in society.'

Wading in. Here's the Biblical line, best can bet assessed. First past the post; God accepts within a frame-work of reasonable understanding, one man's conscience and faith for, leads one way, and another etc. etc.

Therefore and often, God paradoxical in desired will. Working for those sincere protesting and yet not necessarily favouring the stand.

Business wise a proprietor's freedom of choice. OK if it's Donald Trump supporters. Horrible if transsexual.

When tranny loving Jesus, isn't necessarily bothered about dress code and self-identifying, self-about beliefs. Bigger fish to catch. As Ravenhill liked to quote, 'we're hunting mice while lions roam'.

The witness wider though, is pants. Or maybe... reverse this and suggest, it's healthy for evangelicals to consider what must. Through these prophetic signs and making of it here and there.

And those standing in a protest-called-vigil outside UK abortion centers. Soon for the kibosh. This outside limits already over-legislated for. Still enough and already? No we all watching the net pull us to madness.

All bout All, can offend -- or no one?

Libertarian society would suggest, the couple should have the freedoms to refuse. Collectivists want to shut, what they believe, is the slope into hate crime. Which is a media propagated wind-up of elite constructed, justifying changes in society i.e. lock-down and destruction.

"All fight" as they spit and stir in mainstream double-think. If the nips won't scrap we'll encourage. Lamb looking care-mongers, tough sensible types, while behind, wolves eating our heritage and imperfect traditions. And everything much, they have a vision. Agenda 21, a snapshot.

You make offence a threat. Sargon debate recently lit up the tube. The other bloke had some thing's to say that might balance and better challenge Sargon but it's the legal/criminalise issue that matters. There will be no debate if anymore, not able to question.

Underline is pump up need and stuffed in our mugs, for State-apparatus, uniformed protection. Bouncer shake-down. All in the same vein as falsey's or phony fake shows.

Evangelicals and/or traditional-value in the main conservatives -- want the trannies off the pedestal, thinking through media and on the assumption, it's making the masses bent. Little too late. The video and forums are in full-swing with T.V. barely able to get more simpering suck-PC. Thing is though, the uptake and trans-this or that, isn't quite the catch-on, as the go-gay speculators suggest? We choose to remain the with the realisation we're heterosexual, in what must be concluded, resilient 90+ %. (What about 95%?).

Certainly see a whole lot of gay women in their couple-ups. And sure, less visible in someways, gay men. And.. so...?

Do I.... care ? Over and above, if did, what they put out? No one much, in again 90% disagree, except what's the fruit of these colourful trees?

And God is not into change-back from a path, unless said, wants a reversal. And well, off y'go. Because God lives in, the love has and works with, gays and trannies. If asked.

Another, and traditional view, hold differently. Yet, in a decade, ground has shifted and the 'open and accepting evangelicals' won muted and reluctantly given room at the table.

(Even though they're invariably in the wet-progressive hiding from Truthscoop-type talk but hey, so be the trads.)

Evangelical broad and main is no longer refusing after the hard-fought to maintain fellowship breaker. From not having to accept these gay-views but ambivalence through to, mild to stronger supporters of those sitting in the back-row quietly being gay. Or would accept fully that, if any gay people turned up on Sunday morn?

Evangelical/conservative Christians are overwhelmingly not into highlighting transvestite troubles. A sizable and growing minority, welcoming people who are Gay into church meetings and community.

The real story here is about the ability to discriminate without facing civil or criminal action. The appropriate response to this incident is to let people refuse business (not public services) and publicise this for the court of public opinion.

This would bring out the best in middle majority, somewhere like UK and as happens would increase overall sympathy for or empathy with Transsexuals etc. etc. Etc...

So pretend this the outcome, policy-makers and surrounding, intent on using the diversity of opinion and turning cultural fractures into splits.

2017 is the year of the book burning or fires dampened? What better tool to try-add more restrictions than sex and God.