Because people got offended that they were required to bake cakes for same sex
couples, states are now making discrimination legal where you can decline to serve people in your business based on religious purposes. Do most of you think this is a real dangerous idea?

--- WWIVToss v.1.50
* Origin: Inland Utopia BBS (1:218/109.0)

On 02-24-14, MATT MUNSON said to ALL:

Because people got offended that they were required to bake cakes for same MM>sex couples, states are now making discrimination legal where you can MM>decline to serve people in your business based on religious purposes. Do MM>most of you think this is a real dangerous idea?

There is a stopper to all this controversy that has been active since I was a very young man.


In many places of businesses there used to be a sign in plain view that said
in large letters:


WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!!


No need for court cases, lawyers, hurt feelings, or controversy. It has always been a business proprietor's option to control their own business, and were allowed to decide with whom and under what circumstances they do business
with. Until the homosexuals came along.


It doesn't strike anyone weird that, a sex offender comes out of prison and society can limit `where' that person lives, `where' that person goes, merchants refusing to have them on their premises? Even though they have in most cases served the sentence laid on them as punishment for whatever they did, society can treat them that way and there is no hue and cry over it?

Yet, a small, sex-degenerate segment of our society, a segment that transmits some of the most deadly STD's in our population, a segment that has succeeded in perverting the institution of marriage with their filth, is suddenly entitled to a wedding cake, whether the baker wants to bake it for them or
not?


The only difference between a convicted sex offender and a homosexual is, the sex offender is required to register.


BTW....there are homosexual beauty salons, homosexual botiques, homosexual interior decorators, homosexual tailors, etc etc...the list is endless.


There is bound to be a homosexual bakery out there somewhere that these people can get their stupid-ass wedding cake from.


The only reason the homosexuals involved in that particular instance are pressing it, is to `get in yer face' with their degeneracy. If they can force someone to make them a wedding cake, what makes you think they could be prevented from forcing `mandated' instruction in homosexual practices on one
of your children or grandchildren in a public venue? Ever think of that?


Not many people have. Teaching our children that a perverted, desease-causing activity like `homosexuality' comes under the blanket of `diversity', or
`equal rights', puts our future on a dark path. One day people will wake up
and regret their support of such degeneracy.



---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

|Because people got offended that they were required to bake cakes for same sex |couples, states are now making discrimination legal where you can decline to |serve people in your business based on religious purposes. Do most of you |think this is a real dangerous idea?

I look at it another way... if a business would prefer not to serve me, for whatever reason, do I really want them to?

##MMR 2.61(beta). !link MATTM 02-24-14 23:37


--- GTMail 1.26
* Origin: Capitol City Online * 502/875-8938 * cco.ath.cx (1:2320/105.0)

|Because people got offended that they were required to bake cakes for same se
|couples, states are now making discrimination legal where you can decline to |serve people in your business based on religious purposes. Do most of you |think this is a real dangerous idea?

I look at it another way... if a business would prefer not to serve me, for whatever reason, do I really want them to?

Depends on the situation. Let's say that you are driving across country on business. You are getting hungry. Every restaurant that you stop at, refuses to serve you. You start getting tired. Every hotel you stop at, refuses to serve you. Yeah, I think that in some cases you would want them to do business
with you.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-02-14, MIKE POWELL said to MATT MUNSON:

|Because people got offended that they were required to bake cakes for MP>same sex |couples, states are now making discrimination legal where you MP>can decline to |serve people in your business based on religious purposes. MP>Do most of you |think this is a real dangerous idea?

I look at it another way... if a business would prefer not to serve me, MP>for whatever reason, do I really want them to?

Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. A business owner has
the right to have his or her business defined by their own standards, and not
a bunch of perverts.


If I were a bar owner I would not want the homosexual crowd making my business get defined as a `homosexual hangout'. And I've known bar and tavern owners in the past who have refused to serve them for that very reason.


Businesses have refused to be defined as a `biker hangout' in the past by not serving outlaw bikers who tried to turn their establishment into one. Ditto with street gangs. Establishments have turned known and openly-obvious gang members away from their businesses for the same reason.


A bakery does not have to allow itself to become defined as a place where same-sex couples can feed their mutual delusion of `marriage' between two same-sex people, by getting wedding cakes there.


If I were a baker and got put in the position of being sued by two homosexuals because I wouldn't make them a wedding cake, I'd stop making wedding cakes as part of my busniess. At least openly. It would be known in the heterosexual community that I would make wedding cakes for couples in my home. But I would no longer make wedding cakes in my public place of business. There is nothing
a court on any level could do about that.


And before you come back and claim I can't do that either, I know for a fact that homosexual-oriented businesses have been refusing to do business with heterosexuals, and getting away with it for years!


The homosexual crowd have been forcing their way into the mainstream of the nation for many years, now. Many years ago in this very echo I warned that homosexuality would even be taught in schools before long. I was roundly cursed, labeled a `bigot', `not very tolerant', and many other things too filthy and lengthy to list.


And guess what? In many schools it is now being taught as an `alternative life style'!


Of course, the many sexually-transmitted deseases, not to mention injuries, that accompany homosexual practices are not talked about at the same time. The homosexuals do have their image to preserve.


My question is; why does society allow a small number of sex degenerates to bully them into pretending that its all so nice? It isn't `nice'. Its disgusting! A nation that would allow a mental illness to become `mainstream', is a nation that is very near the end of its existence as a nation.



---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

I look at it another way... if a business would prefer not to serve me,
for
whatever reason, do I really want them to?

I think they are thinking the power of the state helped the black people in the 1960s, it could be used today to solve issues like this.
d
--- WWIVToss v.1.50
* Origin: Inland Utopia BBS (1:218/109.0)

On 03-02-14, EARL CROASMUN said to MIKE POWELL:

|Because people got offended that they were required to bake cakes for same

se > |couples, states are now making discrimination legal where you can EC>decline to > |serve people in your business based on religious purposes. EC>Do most of you > |think this is a real dangerous idea?

I look at it another way... if a business would prefer not to serve me, for whatever reason, do I really want them to?

Depends on the situation. Let's say that you are driving across country EC>on business. You are getting hungry. Every restaurant that you stop at, EC>refuses to serve you. You start getting tired. Every hotel you stop at, EC>refuses to serve you. Yeah, I think that in some cases you would want EC>them to do business with you.

For many decades now, it has been the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone.


As a Christian, the baker in this particular instance is holding to their Christian faith, and the teachings of the Christian bible.


Homosexuality is not only an unnatural physical activity, it is against all Christian doctrine. It is against Christian scripture.


By the way...notice this isn't an `Islamic' bakery.


Homosexuals have been pressing for acceptance in the main stream for decades.


Each little victory for them is nothing more than an encouragement to press further and harder.


One of the main obstacles in their way is main stream Christianity.


If they can overcome that one, they have won and our society will then be defined by that degeneration.


It has recently been defined more of a `culture' war. In fact, it has nothing whatever to do with `civil rights' (spelled with a small `c' and small `r').


If I were a black, I'd strongly resent homosexuals trying to define themselves as being any part of the Civil Rights movement of yesteryear (spelled with Capitol `C' and Capitol `R').


It wasn't about `homosexuality' and never was. I remember those years well.
And in all those marches, demonstrations, riots, police brutality instances.. ...I never once saw the `pink' flag of the homosexual crowd in the forefront
of the violence.


Not once did I see a homosexual get on-camera and make a pitch for Civil Rights. Nor were there any speeches made by any homosexuals hooking their star to the Civil Rights movement of the `60's and `70's. Never.


But the `Jim Crow' laws were meant to seperate one race of people from
another. No such thing is being done in the case of homosexuals.


Here's a few questions I recently ran across that sort of pin-point the real issue in this case of a Christian baker refusing to be part of something that violates their religious beliefs and teachings;


A black owner of a store that sells bedding and such. Would they be required
to sell sheets to the local Klu Klux Klan? Or a black tailor shop. Would they be required to cut out and sew the robes and hoods of klansmen?


A Jewish printer. Would they be required to print up and sell posters of Adolf Hitler to a Neo-Nazi group celebrating Hitler's birthday?


Would a Christian film maker be required to `shoot' a pornographic movie?


Then why is a Christian bakery required to bake a cake for an event that is against all Christian teachings, not to mention against the laws of nature?


How about an Islamic print shop? Would they be requird to print the English translation of Salmun Rushdie's book that set the Islamic world off several years ago?


Another thing;


This is *one* bakery! Can it be shown that there is no other bakery anywhere that these two same-sex individuals couldn't have gone to, after being refused in this one?


Lakewood, Colorado, isn't that where this is going on?


Lakewood is the 5th most populous city in Colorado.


By using Google, I find there are 19 bakeries in Lakewood, Colorado.


Lets see....19 bakeries.....hmm...one bakery out of 19 refuses to violate
their religious beliefs against homosexuality. That leaves 18 other bakeries these two homosexuals could have gone to, after being turned down by this one.


But they didn't. Instead, they go to court with this guy. Looks like a put-up job.


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Depends on the situation. Let's say that you are driving across country
on business. You are getting hungry. Every restaurant that you stop at,
refuses to serve you. You start getting tired. Every hotel you stop at,
refuses to serve you. Yeah, I think that in some cases you would want
them to do business with you.

For many decades now, it has been the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone.

Not under the law.

As a Christian, the baker in this particular instance is holding to their Christian faith, and the teachings of the Christian bible.

I don;'t believe that there are any cake-related commandments in the bible.

Homosexuality is not only an unnatural physical activity, it is against all Christian doctrine. It is against Christian scripture.

I realize that you believe that to be true, but it is irrelevant to the bakery issue. If a baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple, I really doubt that that would have the result of turning them straight. Baking a cake does not make one a party to an alleged sin.



--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-04-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

Depends on the situation. Let's say that you are driving across country
on business. You are getting hungry. Every restaurant that you stop at,
refuses to serve you. You start getting tired. Every hotel you stop at,
refuses to serve you. Yeah, I think that in some cases you would want
them to do business with you.

For many decades now, it has been the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone.

Not under the law.

A business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.


Just because someone has a business doesn't automatically obligate that person to do business with anyone who walks in the door.


I personally witnessed, and heard of many, instances where a business refused service to someone who in turn, refused to leave until service was provided.

The business owner or employee called the police, and in every instance the person refused service was compelled to leave. In fact...I double dare anyone to refuse to leave a business where they've been refused service in the state of Texas, and a couple of deputy sheriff's OR a city cop has been called to
the scene. Believe me....you WILL leave! One way or another. But go, you will!

As a Christian, the baker in this particular instance is holding to their Christian faith, and the teachings of the Christian bible.

I don;'t believe that there are any cake-related commandments in the bible.

Nobody said there were. That is not the issue being raised.


The issue is this:


A pair of same-sex sodomites want to get `married' to each other.

They wanted a wedding cake for this `wedding', and made the mistake of going
to a devoutly-Christian baker's shop to order the cake.

In line with his strong Christian beliefs, the baker refused to participate in an act that went against those beliefs. For the same reason an Eagle Scout would not violate their oath to be `trustworthy'. For the same reason a devout Islamic would not defame Muhammad. It goes against their sworn oath of honesty in the case of the Eagle Scout, and devotion to Islam in the case of the Islamic.


You cannot be an honest man, known for your integrity, yet you cheat on your taxes.

You cannot claim to not have robbed the bank, yet you drove the getaway car used to arrive at, wait at the curb, and then drive away from the robbery,
with the robbers and the money stolen in the robbery, in the car with you.

You cannot engage in a sexual act, and then in all honesty claim to still be a virgin.

You cannot be a Christian and yet participate in the violation of biblical and Christian teachings.

Baking a cake for what you KNOW is a `marriage' that goes against your own Christian principles and Scriptural teachings, makes YOU a participant in what Christians see as a sinful, evil act; sodomy.

Again! there were many other bakeries in that city they COULD have gone to, once refused service at this one. They didn't. They instead chose to go to court (go public) with this. It smells more and more like a put-up job to me.

Homosexuality is not only an unnatural physical activity, it is
against all Christian doctrine. It is against Christian scripture.

I realize that you believe that to be true, but it is irrelevant to the EC>bakery issue.

It IS true. The `bakery issue' is an issue of two Sodomites trying to force someone to set aside their firmly-held Christian beliefs AGAINST that
activity, and participate in an act that is both repugnant and sinful in the eyes of their religion. THAT is the issue.

If a baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple, I really
doubt that that would have the result of turning them straight.

Nobody's trying to make them `straight'. Nobody really cares about the two of them.

Baking a cake does not make one a party to an alleged sin.

It does if you're a believing Christian. And you should see the connection
here for yourself.


You cannot be a `half' honest man. You are either honest, or you're not. The same with virginity. There's no such thing as half-a-virgin. You either are or you aren't.


You cannot be `half-a-Christian'. You are `Christian' in `some' things...but not in `others'. You either ARE a Christian, or you are NOT. There is no `half-way' in Christianity.


Even in Catholicism, you cannot `knowingly' take part in something that
does not make you guilty of the `whole'. You cannot be the receptionist at an abortion clinic, knowing full well what goes on inside, and be a good practicing Catholic at the same time. You are knowingly participating in the mortal sin of murder of the unborn. You aren't weilding the scalpel, but you ARE doing the reception intake paperwork, with the full knowledge of what that will result in.

If you are the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery, the curb is red in front of where you are parked, and inside the bank a teller gets shot to death by one of the robbers, you are as guilty as those who went in the bank with drawn weapons, of murder. You cannot plead that `you are only guilty of a driving offense (illegally parked at the curb in front of the bank).

If you are a Christian minister, and you `marry' two individuals of the same sex, you are guilty of a travesty of your religion (in the right denomination it would get you defrocked), and can no longer claim you are a `Christian' minister. You have `knowingly' participated in a sinful, un-natural marriage; that of two Sodomites.

If you are a Christian baker, and two Sodomites of the same sex want you to bake them a `wedding' cake and you do so, you have violated that very
Christian ethic which you claim to hold to.

By refusing to participate in a sinful act of being part of a union that is forbidden by Scriptural teachings, Christian beliefs, and the very laws of Nature (Sodomy), this baker is upholding the very meaning of Freedom of Religion, enshrined in the United States Constitution.

If this baker is found against in this case, that will be the end of all religious freedom in this country. The sexually-disoriented Sodomites, backed by the government, will have succeeded in destroying that part of our Constitution that guarantees and individual the right to practice their religion free of government repression. The government and those with skewed mentalities can do as they please, and rule of law means nothing.


The next step I suppose will be to legalize sex between men and boys. NAMBLA
is waiting in the wings.


What was that book title again?....Oh yeah. `Slouching Towards Gomorrah'. How prophetic! The Sodomites march on.





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

On 03-04-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:


Some things I didn't think of this morning in replying to you on this;

Depends on the situation. Let's say that you are driving across country
on business. You are getting hungry. Every restaurant that you stop at,
refuses to serve you. You start getting tired. Every hotel you stop at,
refuses to serve you. Yeah, I think that in some cases you would want
them to do business with you.

For many decades now, it has been the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone.

Not under the law.

Firstly, its not like Christian businesses all over are flatly refusing
service to any and all homosexuals. Although there are bars and nightclubs
that are sodomite\owned or oriented that refuse to serve heterosexuals, a Christian business doesn't refuse service on that basis.


And its not like there aren't a lot of other bakeries in the area of the one
in question, where these two sodomites could have taken their business.

As a Christian, the baker in this particular instance is holding to their Christian faith, and the teachings of the Christian bible.

I don;'t believe that there are any cake-related commandments in the EC>bible.

No, there isn't. But the Christian bible DOES teach that a righteous person
has the obligation to avoid even the appearance of evil. The act of sodomy,
and sexual contact between two members of the same sex, is condemned by Christian Scripture.

Homosexuality is not only an unnatural physical activity, it is

against all > Christian doctrine. It is against Christian scripture.

I realize that you believe that to be true, but it is irrelevant to the EC>bakery issue.

I do, and no, its not! It IS the issue.


Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States? Its either a *yes* or *no* situation.


The First Amendment of the Constitution states:


`Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...'


What part of `...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...' is difficult
for the sodomites to comprehend? All of it?


The Constitution guarantees one and all the freedom to practice the religion
of their choice. It also guarantees one and all the right to NOT practice any religion at all, implicit in the words; `...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...' if thats their choice.


It was recently pointed out that, if you are of a mind to engage in a same-sex relationship, you have a right to do so. And if, by some stretch of reason,
you wish to carry that relationship into a `marriage', you are also (in some states) allowed to do so. Regardless of what the vast majority of voters in
any of those states opt for in their ballots, leftist legislatures, activist federal courts legislating from the bench, and sodomite activists forge ahead anyway and ignore the electorate.


If a Christian photographer doesn't want to violate their religion by photographing your sodomite wedding, thats their right to not violate their conciencous relilgious beliefs. Same with a baker. A refusal to participate in the delusion of two mentally-ill sodomites on religious grounds, is (or is *supposed* to be) inviolable! Religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution.

If a baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple, I really
doubt that that would have the result of turning them straight.

Baking a cake does not make one a party to an alleged sin.

It is an endorsement of an evil act. Any real Christian of concience would refuse to participate in such an endorsement.


Someone once said; "Never do anything against concience even if the state demands it."


This baker isn't turning away sodomites just because they're sodomites. they are refusing to violate their legitimately-held religious beliefs against the forbidden act of sodomy.


This an attack on the very moral tenets of Christianity.


It isn't as though Christian businesses all over the country are refusing service to homosexuals on the ground: "We don't serve your kind, here."


If that were taking place, the leftist media would be all over it like a
circus tent! It would be headline news every day. No matter how you try, you cannopt turn this situation into something like that, because it doesn't fit.


Again...why, with all those other bakeries in town to go to, did this sodomite couple decide to waste their time and money to sue over this?


The answer to that is pretty plain. Its just another push to force Christians and their beliefs out of the mainstream. This bakery is in the right. And if they aren't free to refuse to endorse something they hold to be against their Christianity, then the concept of `Freedom of Religion' has no meaning.


Someone else once said: "An individual who breaks a law that concience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arrouse the concience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest regard for the law."


Freedom to practice and believe in ones religion is enshrined in the Constitution. And if business people aren't free to operate their business according to their religious concience, then that Constitution is no longer worth the paper its written on, and those who wrote it and signed it, did so for nothing.


Another point I recently saw raised; if the sodomites actually believe their own rhetoric...that `straights' are all hateful, bigoted religious freaks,
why would they wanna buy anything they have to eat from a `straight' baker in the first place? Aren't they afraid some ingredient in the cake will turn them into a `hetero'?






---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

For many decades now, it has been the right of a business owner to refuse
service to anyone.

Not under the law.

A business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.
Just because someone has a business doesn't automatically obligate that person
to do business with anyone who walks in the door.

With some exceptions, they are legally obligated to do exactly that if it is a "public accommodation." Bakeries are included in the US Code's definition of "public accommodation." The owner can refuse service for some reasons, such as
"no shirt no service" or inability to pay or creating a disturbance, but not for just any reason that the owner may want to assert.

I personally witnessed, and heard of many, instances where a business refused service to someone who in turn, refused to leave until service was provided. The business owner or employee called the police, and in every instance the person refused service was compelled to leave.

Depends on the reason. If the owner said "I don't serve left-handed people" or
"I don't serve Orientals" or "I don't serve anyone who is wearing a uniform," they would not have been as successful.

I don;'t believe that there are any cake-related commandments in the bible.

Nobody said there were. That is not the issue being raised.
The issue is this:
A pair of same-sex sodomites want to get `married' to each other.
They wanted a wedding cake for this `wedding', and made the mistake of going to a devoutly-Christian baker's shop to order the cake.
In line with his strong Christian beliefs, the baker refused to participate in
an act that went against those beliefs.

That would be half-relevant to getting a marriage license. If the marriage wouldn't be legally recognized without a license, then the person granting the license is "participating" in the wedding. But the person baking the cake to be eaten at the reception is not "participating" in the wedding. The reception
could still be held without a cake, and the wedding could still be held without
a reception.

But those "beliefs" you talk about have nothing to do with the wedding. You believe that a sexual act between two people of the same sex is immoral. That has nothing to do with the wedding, let alone the cake. People can have sex outside of marriage, so the act of getting married just changes the relationship between the two people. It does not make the marriage immoral.

Baking a cake for what you KNOW is a `marriage' that goes against your own
Christian principles and Scriptural teachings, makes YOU a participant in what
Christians see as a sinful, evil act; sodomy.

Baking a cake does not make the baker a participant in sodomy. Except maybe in
some low budget porn movies.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

The First Amendment of the Constitution states:
`Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...'

Bakers are free to exercise their religion, just as anyone who operates a public accommodation is free to exercise their religion. Unless that religion tells a barber something like "you are forbidden to cut the hair of someone of a different religion." If the barber wanted to discriminate, or felt that their religion required them to discriminate, they should probably look for a different line of work.

If a Christian photographer doesn't want to violate their religion by photographing your sodomite wedding, thats their right to not violate their
conciencous relilgious beliefs.

"Conscientious objector" status has some relevance to the military, but not to photography. The wedding can happen with or without a photographer.



--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-06-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

The First Amendment of the Constitution states:
`Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...'

Bakers are free to exercise their religion, just as anyone who operates a EC>public accommodation is free to exercise their religion.

Aparently this baker isn't allowed to. And again: There are other bakeries in that city. Why not take their business to one of them?

Unless that religion tells a barber something like "you are forbidden to EC>cut the hair of someone of a different religion." If the barber wanted to EC>discriminate, or felt that their religion required them to discriminate, EC>they should probably look for a different line of work.

A barber isn't a baker. And there are so many barbers out there it wouldn't even come up. Some barbers, by the way, do NOT cut the hair of children under
a certain age. Did you know that?


But this baker is being pilloried because he will not sign onto the wedding between two sodomites. By making this cake for the two same-sex individuals
who want to defile the sacrament of holy matrimony, they would, indeed, be
part and parcel of that defilement. That is against their strongly-held Christian beliefs and practices. By refusing to be any part of a defilement of that sacred, God-mandated bond of two people, a Man and a Woman, this baker is standing up for their religious principles, and their human values.

If a Christian photographer doesn't want to violate their religion by photographing your sodomite wedding, thats their right to not violate their
conciencous relilgious beliefs.

"Conscientious objector" status has some relevance to the military, but EC>not to photography. The wedding can happen with or without a EC>photographer.

It can happen with or without a wedding cake, also. And besides, this is not
an objection on `conciencious' grounds; it is an objection on religious grounds, enshrined in, and protected by, the Constitution of the United
States. That document, which is supposed to be what all our laws are based on and guided by, states our rights in the matter of religion in the very First Amendment. It either means what it says, or it doesn't.


It either guarantees our right to adhere to our religious beliefs, or it does not.


And if a pair of sodomites can topple that right over a fucking wedding cake, then the entire Constitution has become meaningless.





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

On 03-06-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

For many decades now, it has been the right of a business owner to refuse
service to anyone.

Not under the law.

A business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.
Just because someone has a business doesn't automatically obligate that >person to do business with anyone who walks in the door.

With some exceptions, they are legally obligated to do exactly that if it EC>is a "public accommodation."

Not if that business violates their religious beliefs and practices. Nor a persons' personal standards and morals.


Its not as though this baker is refusing to sell these two sodomites `anything at all', just because they are sodomites. They are free to buy anything in
that business they choose, donuts, bread, pies, cakes.


The issue here is; these two sodomites want to get married. they want a
wedding cake.

This particular baker is a practicing Christian, believes that `marriage' is a sanctified bond between a Man and a Woman, mandated by God, Himself.


Another part of the issue (and I think the REAL issue in this particular case) is, the sodomites see this as `striking a blow against one of the biggest hurdles in the country against full acceptance of the degenerate practice of sodomy; Christianity.'


The issue isn't `the cake'. Its the tearing down of all religion.


See....the sodomites have been attempting to insinuating their lifestyle into American Mainstream for years, now. Ever since a small portion of some psychiatric association was bullied by the sodomites and their defenders, into pretending that same-sex orientation isn't the mental illness that it is, and removing homosexuality from their list of mental pathologies.


Thats comparable to a DMV in some state, deciding to re-classify a full-sized tractor-trailer, and designate it a compact car!


Everybody `sees' the tractor-trailer parked there, or moving down the highway, but its no longer a hugh combination vehicle according to one or two states' DMV's, its just a compact car!


Sodomy hasn't become `the norm' of human sexual relations, such that we now `just naturally' see two same-sex sodomites getting `married' as being the every-day common, acceptable practice, any more than that semi piling into a string of cars would have the effect of a `compact car'.


You can make or support all the laws you want that classifies that semi as a `compact car'; but it still weighs around 80,000 pounds fully loaded, and will cause great havoc if it slams into a line of vehicles stopped on a freeway!


Idiot'thinking legislatures can pass all the laws `mainstreaming' the
sodomites and their `life-style' they want. Its still nothing but `sodomy'; repugnant, disgusting, un-natural behavior.


The sodomites are just getting `pushy' now. Forcing people to acept the un- acceptable, and big government is helping them. By shredding the Constitution.


Sexual dis-orientation in either a male or female is a mental illness. That doesn't just up and go away. Not only that...it is disgusting. That doesn't just up and go away, either.


You can pretend all you want; the `Emperor' isn't wearing new clothes; he's naked!

But those "beliefs" you talk about have nothing to do with the wedding.

Yes...it does.

You believe that a sexual act between two people of the same sex is EC>immoral. That has nothing to do with the wedding, let alone the cake.

Yes...it does.

People can have sex outside of marriage, so the act of getting married EC>just changes the relationship between the two people. It does not make EC>the marriage immoral.

Baking a cake for what you KNOW is a `marriage' that goes against your own >

Christian principles and Scriptural teachings, makes YOU a participant in > what Christians see as a sinful, evil act; sodomy.

Baking a cake does not make the baker a participant in sodomy.

We aren't talking about just *any* baker. We're talking about a *Christian* baker. A devout Christian who's Christian teachings are fully against the practice of sodomy in any form.

Except maybe in some low budget porn movies.

And, like `porn movies', there is a place for them, and people have the right to NOT have porn theatres in their neighborhoods.


And people of faith have the right NOT to participate in something that violates their strongly-held Christian principles.


By the way...I have not seen where this bakery is completely refusing to sell this pair of same-sex sodomites ANYthing in their bakery! Cookies, cupcakes, pies....nothing!


The bakery is only refusing to be part of something that flies in the face of their Christian principles; a wedding between two same-sex sodomites.


And...you haven't as yet addressed the one single question;


There are 17 other bakeries in that city. These two sodomites could easily
take their business elsewhere.


Its highly unlikely that these two would have the resources to make this a court case that will quite probably take some length of time to resolve. At least it would in ordinary circumstances. And lawyers don't work for free.


I look for this to have a whole lot more to it than we are seeing right now.



---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

But this baker is being pilloried because he will not sign onto the wedding

Again, baking a cake does not involve signing onto the wedding. He would not be endorsing it. He would not be giving it his blessing. He does not have the
power to force the wedding, nor to prevent it.

"Conscientious objector" status has some relevance to the military, but
not to photography. The wedding can happen with or without a
photographer.

It can happen with or without a wedding cake, also.

Exactly.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

But those "beliefs" you talk about have nothing to do with the wedding.
You believe that a sexual act between two people of the same sex is
immoral. That has nothing to do with the wedding, let alone the cake.

People can have sex outside of marriage, so the act of getting married
just changes the relationship between the two people. It does not make
the marriage immoral.

Baking a cake for what you KNOW is a `marriage' that goes against your own >

Christian principles and Scriptural teachings, makes YOU a participant in > what Christians see as a sinful, evil act; sodomy.

Only if you believe that both parties were celibate and would remain celibate forever if they did not get married. Otherwise the act that you consider immoral is going to take place, with or without a cake, with or without a wedding, with or without any marriage of any type. In fact, if you believe that sex outside of marriage is also immoral, or if you believe that promiscuity in general is also immoral, then you should want them to get married even if you believe that homosexual acts are immoral. If they are going to have sex anyway, then having it outside of marriage ought to make it doubly immoral to you.

There are 17 other bakeries in that city.

Doesn't justify discrimination in public accommodations.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-06-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

But those "beliefs" you talk about have nothing to do with the wedding.
You believe that a sexual act between two people of the same sex is
immoral. That has nothing to do with the wedding, let alone the cake.

People can have sex outside of marriage, so the act of getting married
just changes the relationship between the two people. It does not make
the marriage immoral.

Baking a cake for what you KNOW is a `marriage' that goes against your own
Christian principles and Scriptural teachings, makes YOU a participant in what Christians see as a sinful, evil act; sodomy.

Only if you believe that both parties were celibate and would remain EC>celibate forever if they did not get married.

Their `celibacy' has nothing whatever to do with anything. If you are now
going to bring `celibacy' into the matter...lets follow that path a short distance;


They are...and will `remain' celibate. So...why get `married' in the first place? If they intend to remain `celibate', no need for a `wedding', they
could just live tgether, combine their finances, put both name on their accounts, and make out a mutual will leaving everything to the other partner.


So...why do a `wedding'?

Otherwise the act that you consider immoral is going to take place, with or EC>without a cake, with or without a wedding, with or without any marriage EC>of any type.

Has no doubt already taken place, and has been ongoing for some time. The idea of `marriage' is a deliberate slap in the face to Christian beliefs in the first place. And violates the very notion of `marriage' between two people.


And it isn't what *I* consider `moral or immoral'. We aren't talking about
*MY* thoughts on morality, here. We are talking about a couple of same-sex sodomites who were refused a wedding cake by a Christian baker, who saw the making of that cake, KNOWING it was intended to celibrate a so-called `marriage' between two same-sex individuals. A complete perversion of the sanctity of matrimony, as the baker's Christianity teaches it to be.


AGAIN! Tthere are many OTHER bakeries in that city. Why make an issue over this. Why not just go to a different bakery?


This smacks of a put-up job.

In fact, if
you believe that sex outside of marriage is also immoral, or if you EC>believe that promiscuity in general is also immoral, then you should want EC>them to get married even if you believe that homosexual acts are immoral.

The notions of sexual activities between two individuals of the same sex isn't the issue here. This case is about same-sex marriage between two sodomites.


Christianity teaches that it is not only wrong naturally, it is also wrong morally. The biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were wicked peoples, who, among other evils, practiced the un-natural sexual activity of same-sex relations.


Christian teachings, not to mention Nature itself, are completely against such a notion.


There is either Freedom of Religion, or their isn't.


If you can tear down Christianity over one of the most perverted and evil activities to ever have been concieved by degenerate thinkers, then no
religion of any kind is safe in this country.

If they are going to have sex anyway, then having it outside of marriage EC>ought to make it doubly immoral to you.

It isn't *MY* morals in question. Its the entire notion of religious freedom, as enshrined in the United States Constitution.

There are 17 other bakeries in that city.

Doesn't justify discrimination in public accommodations.

There is no discrimination involved here. None! These two sodomites are perfectly welcome to buy baked goods from this bakery as far as I know. The baker involved here has not refused to do business with them simply because they are sodomites. The two sodomites want to do a `wedding'. A perversion of the relationship the Christian God established between a Man and a Woman, for the purposes of procreation, and a Holy bond of love.


As a Christian, this baker refuses to be party to such a degeneration of the notion of marriage. It flies in the face of Nature, it flies in the face of all Christian teachings. A true, believing Christian would not want even the appearance of participating in what they know is a sinful act.


Again...either the Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Religion is real, or it isn't.


If this baker is either forced to participate in this sodomite wedding by baking the cake, or fined out of existance as a bakery for refusing to bend to the will of two sodomites, then the Constitution as it is written, means nothing.


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

On 03-06-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

But this baker is being pilloried because he will not sign onto the wedding

Again, baking a cake does not involve signing onto the wedding.

Yes it does. And if it doesn't, then no prosecutor can ever bring someone into court for furnishing the car used in a bank robbery. No citizen can ever again be prosecuted for furnishing the gun that is used to murder someone.


By claiming that this baker *isn't signing on to a sodomite wedding by baking and selling the cake he KNOWS is for a sodomite wedding, at the same time this goes for other interpretations of such situations as well. No prosecutor can ever go into court and claim any defendant *KNOWINGLY* furnished a weapon or vehicle involved in a crime.


The defense then becomes ...`yeah but...he didn't "...sign on to it", yer honor!"

He would not be endorsing it.

A person who lends someone a car to do a bank robbery isn't `endorsing it' either, right?

He would not be giving it his blessing.

A person who lends someone a gun to shoot someone else isn't `giving their blessing' to a murder, right?

He does not have the power to force the wedding, nor to prevent it.

He isn't trying to do either one. He's simply refusing to be any party to it.

"Conscientious objector" status has some relevance to the military, but
not to photography. The wedding can happen with or without a
photographer.

It can happen with or without a wedding cake, also.

Exactly.

Ah...then you AGREE that the cake really has no bearing on whether or not the wedding itself occurs?


So then, if thats true....why don't they just go to a different bakery? Why take THIS one to court? If they're so `in love', and want to badly to be `married', one would think they'd want their `wedding' to be remembered as a joyous occasion, and not a nasty court battle over the fucking cake!


Just go to a different bakery! Problem solved! Why make a court case out of
it?


And THAT speaks of there being a lot more to this than we're seeing right now.


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

But those "beliefs" you talk about have nothing to do with the wedding.
You believe that a sexual act between two people of the same sex is
immoral. That has nothing to do with the wedding, let alone the cake.
People can have sex outside of marriage, so the act of getting married
just changes the relationship between the two people. It does not make
the marriage immoral.

Baking a cake for what you KNOW is a `marriage' that goes against your own >> > Christian principles and Scriptural teachings, makes YOU a participant in >> > what Christians see as a sinful, evil act; sodomy.

Only if you believe that both parties were celibate and would remain
celibate forever if they did not get married.

Their `celibacy' has nothing whatever to do with anything.

Yes, it does. That is what you consider immoral.

If they intend to remain `celibate', no need for a `wedding'

Not really the baker's concern as to whether a wedding is "necessary" or not.

Otherwise the act that you consider immoral is going to take place, with or >> without a cake, with or without a wedding, with or without any marriage
of any type.

Looked up the Colorado case. Some interesting details. First, same-sex marriage was not recognized in Colorado. As far as the baker was concerned, it
was not a "marriage" at all.

Second, they had ALREADY gotten married in Massachusetts, where it was legally recognized. This was a cake to celebrate the Mass. wedding well AFTER the fact. The baker could not have possibly been a participant in the marriage in any way, since it had ALREADY HAPPENED before the two men ever MET the baker.

Third, the baker testified that he would have refused to bake a cake regardless
of whether it was a "wedding" or a "commitment ceremony" or a "civil union" ceremony (same-sex civil unions were recognized in Colorado. So it had nothing
to do with any legal or religious implications of a "marriage." He just did not
like the idea that two gay men were together in any way by any name.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

But this baker is being pilloried because he will not sign onto the wedding >> Again, baking a cake does not involve signing onto the wedding.

Yes it does. And if it doesn't, then no prosecutor can ever bring someone into >court for furnishing the car used in a bank robbery. No citizen can ever again
be prosecuted for furnishing the gun that is used to murder someone.

Completely different. Lending or selling someone a car does not make you a participant in whatever they DO with that car later. And if you know they are going to rob a bank and do not report it, that makes you an accessory to the crime whether you lent them the car or not.

The wedding can happen with or without a photographer.

It can happen with or without a wedding cake, also.

Exactly.

Ah...then you AGREE that the cake really has no bearing on whether or not the wedding itself occurs?

That was exactly what I said. In this case the wedding HAD ALREADY HAPPENED in
fact, so the photographer and the baker had no connection to it HAPPENING.



--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Just go to a different bakery! Problem solved! Why make a court case out of it?

By the way, they didn't have to go to a different baker. A different baker went to THEM, after the story came out. The couple got a FREE cake, and the second baker got a lot of free publicity. A video of the celebration is on YouTube. But that does not change the fact that the first baker broke the law.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-07-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

But this baker is being pilloried because he will not sign onto the EC>wedding >> Again, baking a cake does not involve signing onto the wedding.

Yes it does. And if it doesn't, then no prosecutor can ever bring someone >into >court for furnishing the car used in a bank robbery. No citizen can >ever again be prosecuted for furnishing the gun that is used to murder >someone.

Completely different.

Not at all. Which you admit in your very next paragraph:

Lending or selling someone a car does not
make you a participant in whatever they DO with that car later.

Not if you DON't KNOW what they're going to do with it.


However:

And if
you know they are going to rob a bank and do not report it, that makes you EC>an accessory to the crime whether you lent them the car or not.

And if you are a Christian baker who KNOWS a wedding cake ordered from you is intended to celebrate a s-called `wedding' between two same-sex sodomites, and you bake it for them anyway, that makes you an accessory to sodomy!

The wedding can happen with or without a photographer.

It can happen with or without a wedding cake, also.

Exactly.

Ah...then you AGREE that the cake really has no bearing on whether or not

the > wedding itself occurs?

That was exactly what I said. In this case the wedding HAD ALREADY EC>HAPPENED in fact, so the photographer and the baker had no connection to EC>it HAPPENING.

Then....what, exactly, is the problem these two same-sex sodomites have? If they're already `married'....what's the beef? The baker is within their rights to refuse to be a party to sodomy, or even any appearance of participating in such on religious grounds.


Freedom of Religion is either real, or it isn't. I strongly suspect that, if this were a bakery owned and operated by a family of Islamics, we would not be having this exchange because this would never have come up in a court.


Why take a case to a court over a *Christian* bakery? Feels like a put-up job to me.


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Not really the baker's concern as to whether a wedding is "necessary" or EC>not.

Firstly, where it is NOT the baker's concern about the `wedding', it IS the baker's concern about what he's seen as becoming part and parcel to.


Sodomy, and same-sex `weddings' between two sodomites BECOMES his concern when two same-sex sodomites walk into his place of business and try to make HIM a party to it all against his strongly-held Christian beliefs.


THEN it certainly becomes the bakers' concern.

Otherwise the act that you consider immoral is going to take
place, with or >> without a cake, with or without a wedding, with or EC>without any marriage of any type.

Secondly, what *I* consider immoral isn't any part of this discussion.


We are talking about a *Christian* baker, who has strongly-held Christian beliefs, who refuses to be any part of what they KNOW to be a sodomite relationship.


And before you come back with the `celibacy' argument, I must inform you that the notion of `marriage' between two people (whatever their sex) isn't typically about `celibacy'. that would be a VERY rare instance. The very term `marriage' between two people carries the `physical' side of the intended relationship in an implicit, usually-unspoken manner. But its there, and everyone knows it.


So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it. This is a `homosexual' relationship, and `sodomy' is involved.

Looked up the Colorado case. Some interesting details. First, same-sex EC>marriage was not recognized in Colorado. As far as the baker was EC>concerned, it was not a "marriage" at all.

So then...what's the court case all about?

Second, they had ALREADY gotten married in Massachusetts, where it was EC>legally recognized. This was a cake to celebrate the Mass. wedding well EC>AFTER the fact. The baker could not have possibly been a participant in EC>the marriage in any way, since it had ALREADY HAPPENED before the two men

So then, in other words, `sodomy' was already involved (pretending that these two same-sex sodomites were both `virgins' before this sham wedding in MASS took place).


Then why (pray tell) come all the way out to this city in Colorado, to THIS bakery, and do a court case for being refused a `wedding' cake celibrating a sodomy-relationship between two same-sex sodomites?


This whole thing begins to smack of a put-up job.

Third, the baker testified that he would have refused
to bake a cake regardless of whether it was a "wedding" or a "commitment EC>ceremony" or a "civil union" ceremony (same-sex civil unions were EC>recognized in Colorado.

And rightly so. Scripture in the bible is very specific and clear on this matter. A God-fearing, righteous man does not even allow the appearance of
evil to enter into their life. That is taught in several places in the bible.


First Thesalonians, chapter 5, verses 15 through 22 (I won't quote them all, just the relevant ones):


15: See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that
which is good, both among yourselves and to all men.

21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22: Abstain from all appearance of evil.

1st Peter, chapter 3, verse 11:

11: Let him eschew evil and do good;


You cannot be a Christian, knowing full well the act or even implication of sodomy is an evil, and take part in it on ANY level.

A Christian would know from scriptural teachings that sodomy is considered a great evil by God.

The Hebrew word `qadesh' in Hebrew texts is the word meaning males who engage in sexual relationships with other men or animals.


To a Christian, the act of sodomy is a great evil, forbidden by God. And, to a Christian, even the appearance of evil is abhorant, and to be avoided at all costs.

So it had nothing to do with any legal or
religious implications of a "marriage." He just did not like the idea that EC>two gay men were together in any way by any name.

You bring in a fact not in any of the evidence. You cannot possibly know what he `just did not like'.


It isn't a matter of `what he likes'.


The bottom line is; he is a practicing Christian. And by Christian scriptures, he is forbidden to do evil, or participate in evil on any level. Or even allow the appearance of evil into his life or any aspect of his life; business, family, or private and personal.


And THAT is what is being attacked, here. His Christianity.


If the sodomites can take this guy down, its just one more step down the road to destroying all moral and principled life in this country.


I see it as either Religious Freedom is real or it isn't. If these two sodomites win against this baker, Religious Freedom becomes a things of the past. One more tear in the Constitution.





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Lending or selling someone a car does not
make you a participant in whatever they DO with that car later. And if
you know they are going to rob a bank and do not report it, that makes you >> an accessory to the crime whether you lent them the car or not.

And if you are a Christian baker who KNOWS a wedding cake ordered from you is
intended to celebrate a s-called `wedding' between two same-sex sodomites, and
you bake it for them anyway, that makes you an accessory to sodomy!

Not at all. It would make you an "accessory to marriage," which is NOT a crime. If the marriage were a crime, then EVERYONE who just KNEW about it without reporting it to the police would be an accessory to the marriage. But it makes no difference, since it is not a crime. Now that you know the couple was married in Massachusetts, that makes you as much of an "accessory" as the baker.

And it couldn't possibly make anyone an accessory to any sex that the couple might have, since the marriage and the sex are two completely different things.
Since the sex would be legal, with or without the marriage, the whole idea of being an accessory to it is once again meaningless.



--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it.

You introduced the idea when you turned your objection to how they may or may not have sex into an objection to their marriage. People can have sex without marriage. People can have marriage without sex. Two people can get married for immigration purposes, or for spousal benefits, or for emotional but nonsexual reasons. I know two people (a widow and a widower who had been lifelong friends of each other) who got married in their 70s, because he was terminally ill and she wanted to move in and care for him. I have no idea whether they had sex or not, and I have no interest in knowing.

You do not think same-sex couples should have sex with each other. You have made that clear. But that has no necessary connection to marriage.

Looked up the Colorado case. Some interesting details. First, same-sex
marriage was not recognized in Colorado. As far as the baker was
concerned, it was not a "marriage" at all.

So then...what's the court case all about?

The violation of Colorado's law.

Second, they had ALREADY gotten married in Massachusetts, where it was
legally recognized. This was a cake to celebrate the Mass. wedding well
AFTER the fact. The baker could not have possibly been a participant in
the marriage in any way, since it had ALREADY HAPPENED before the two men

So then, in other words, `sodomy' was already involved

Again, I do not know and do not care what they did before or after the marriage. They were married before they ever MET the baker, so he could not possibly have been a "participant" in the marriage. And baking a cake would not make him a participant in anything they may have done before or after the marriage.

Then why (pray tell) come all the way out to this city in Colorado

I believe they lived there.

Third, the baker testified that he would have refused
to bake a cake regardless of whether it was a "wedding" or a "commitment
ceremony" or a "civil union" ceremony (same-sex civil unions were
recognized in Colorado.

And rightly so.

Not under the law. And it had nothing to do with whether it was called a "marriage" or not, since within the state of Colorado it was not recognized as a marriage.



--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-08-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

Just go to a different bakery! Problem solved! Why make a court case out of it?

By the way, they didn't have to go to a different baker. A different EC>baker went to THEM, after the story came out. The couple got a FREE cake, EC>and the second baker got a lot of free publicity. A video of the EC>celebration is on YouTube.

But that does not change the fact that the first baker broke the law.

!!!!!?????!!! *Broke the law*? Broke WHAT law? There is a *law* that states a devout Christian baker HAS to sign on to a same-sex sodomite `wedding' in violation of their strongly-held relilgious beliefs? A *law* that a business person no longer has the right to refuse service to anyone?


If these two same-sex sodomites prevail in this case, and a court rules the baker HAS to bake their cake regardless of their legitimately-held religious beliefs, then two things occur:


1. Every sign that says *We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone*, in every business in the entire country must be taken down.

2. There is no longer Freedom of Religion in this country, and the United States Constitution no longer exists, except as an historic curio.


And if, as you say, a different baker `went to them'...then they got their fucking cake, and thats an end to it.


Which raises the question: Why go to court?


Oh wait! I see! The *ACLU* stuck its nose into this and THEY are the driving force behind the court case! I should have known!


But...Massachusetts allows same-sex sodomite weddings...and Colorado doesn't.


These two same-sex sodomites were `married' in Massachusetts, and were `celebrating' in Colorado. Colorado doesn't allow same-sex `marriage' between two sodomites, only `civil unions'.


So...these two same-sex sodomites, who are `married' in Massachusetts...go all the way to Colorado to `celebrate'! Perfectly good bakeries in Massachusetts. ...Colorado slightly over 3000 miles away from Massachusetts!


Trip alone must have cost a small fortune...not to mention accomadations in Colorado (not cheap, by the way, especially during ski'ing season).


Anyway...they get there, order a cake from a *Christian* bakery to
celebrate a same-sex *sodomite* `wedding'....and when they're refused, the *ACLU* is waiting in the wings to take the bakery to court on discrimination charges!


I mean....(what are the odds?)...the very first bakery they walk into to order a cake to celebrate a sodomite `wedding', is a bakery who's owner is a devoutly-believing Christian, cannot, on religious grounds, participate in a celebration of `sodomy'! And (low and behold!) the *ACLU* is just...oh...you know, just sort of `in the neighborhood'...for the `ski'ing', you understand!


Another question that arises:


If, after being refused service by this bakery they have in court, another bakery stepped forward (all voluntary-like, you understand...just `happen' to be nearby and over-heard this same-sex sodmite pair `might' be in the market for a cake celebrating their sodomite `wedding') and baked the
friggin' cake....why (oh, why) would these two sodomites from Massachusetts hang around at even MORE expense, and take this bakery into court?


The *ACLU*? Another bakery just `steps forward' and bakes the cake? A court case about `discrimination'?


Beginning to appear more and more like a put-up job!


An assault on Christianity. One more step in the continuing struggle to drag our culture down to the level the Sodomites occupy.


Like `Affirmative Action'. If the Sodomites can't live `up' to the high moral standards Christians (and, at one time, the Nation) set for themselves...then drag the Christians (and the Nation) down to theirs.





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

But that does not change the fact that the first baker broke the law.

!!!!!?????!!! *Broke the law*? Broke WHAT law?

The state law in Colorado that forbids discrimination in public accommodations.
That was the basis of the whole court case.

A *law* that a business
person no longer has the right to refuse service to anyone?

That has not been the law for a long time.

And if, as you say, a different baker `went to them'...then they got their fucking cake, and thats an end to it.

Doesn't change the fact that the first baker broke the law. Same as employment
discrimination. If an employer discriminates against you in a hiring decision,
they cannot defend themselves by saying "well, SOMEONE hired them, so no harm done."

So...these two same-sex sodomites, who are `married' in Massachusetts...go all
the way to Colorado to `celebrate'!

Other way around. Apparently they lived in Colorado and went to Massachusetts to get married, since they couldn't do that in Colorado.

So the baker would not have been "participating" in any way in the marriage, since it had already happened, and the baker said he would have refused to bake
a cake for a purely NON-religious civil union celebration so it really had nothing to do with religion or marriage.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-08-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it.

You introduced the idea when you turned your objection to how they may or EC>may not have sex into an objection to their marriage.

You are wrong (again).


I did no such thing. *You* were the one who brought the notion of *celibacy* into the discussion, not I. I see you didn't leave the full quote and context of wht I was responding to, in this post of yours.

People can have sex without marriage.

True. Done all the time.

People can have marriage without sex.

That would be a rare instance. Outside this discussion. We aren't in pre- school here, we are both adults discussing the religious freedom of a baker, and how it applies to two same-sex sodomites trying to force the bakery to
make them a cake to celibrate a `marriage' that the baker KNOWS (and so do we) is between two same-sex sodomites.

Two people can get married for immigration purposes, or for spousal EC>benefits, or for emotional but nonsexual reasons.

None of which applies in THIS case.

I know two people (a widow and a widower who had been lifelong friends
of each other) who got married in their 70s, because he was terminally EC>ill and she wanted to move in and care for him. I have no idea whether they EC>had sex or not, and I have no interest in knowing.

Again, none of that applies in THIS case.

You do not think same-sex couples should have sex with each other. You EC>have made that clear. But that has no necessary connection to marriage.

You're wrong (again!). I have not specifically stated any such thing! Nowhere in this discussion have I openly stated WHAT I `think' same-sex sodomites should do for sex.


But...just to clear up your *obvious* confusion...I will state, FOR the purposes of this discussion, what I DO think on the subject.


I don't give a rats patute WHAT people do for sex. Thats THEIR business.


If two men want to `honk each others' horn', or two women want to `weed-eat',
I care less. Thats THEM...not me. I prefer normal relations with members ofthe opposite sex, thank you.


But...in all three instance...you're talking about what people do in privacy, and not on public display.


When they start pushing sodomy, of either the male OR female variety, into schools as an `alternate lifestyle'...when they start forcing it into `marriage' laws...and when they try to force those of us who do not sign onto the degenerate notion of `marriage' between two same-sex sodomites...THEN it becomes my business!


One of the reasons my son and daughter-in-law moved to the state of Idaho was to be able to put my grandchildren into private schools. They are much cheaper than private schools in California.


And they don't teach `alternate lifestyles'. Both parents are devout Christians, as was my wife and the entire family.


Also...the curriculum is far better than the public schools offer.

Looked up the Colorado case. Some interesting details.
First, same-sex marriage was not recognized in Colorado. As far as the EC>baker was concerned, it was not a "marriage" at all.

So then...what's the court case all about?

The violation of Colorado's law.

*What* Colorado law? And before you bring yet another strawman into this, no state can make laws that `cancel' any rights guaranteed in the Constitution, which Freedom of Religion most certainly is.

Second, they had ALREADY gotten married in Massachusetts, where it was
legally recognized. This was a cake to celebrate the Mass. wedding well
AFTER the fact. The baker could not have possibly been a participant in
the marriage in any way, since it had ALREADY HAPPENED before the two men

So then, in other words, `sodomy' was already involved

Again, I do not know and do not care what they did before or after the EC>marriage. They were married before they ever MET the baker, so he could EC>not possibly have been a "participant" in the marriage. And baking a cake EC>would not make him a participant in anything they may have done before or EC>after the marriage.

Then why (pray tell) come all the way out to this city in Colorado

I believe they lived there.

So...lets see if I got this right...


Two same-sex sodomites, whom you NOW say already LIVED in Colorado (where same-sex marriage isn't legal), traveled to Massachusetts and got `married' (where same-sex marriage IS legal), they come BACK to Colorado and want to celebrate their `same-sex' marriage (where same-sex `marriage' is ILLegal!).


They go to a bakery, which happens (by the shearest of coincidences) to be owned and operated by a strongly-Christian person, to order a wedding cake to celibrate a same-sex marriage (which, in Colorado is ILLegal), are refused by the bakery on religious grounds.


And the *ACLU* (which just `happened' to be walking by at the time) suddenly drags the bakery into court!

Third, the baker testified that he would have refused
to bake a cake regardless of whether it was a "wedding" or a "commitment
ceremony" or a "civil union" ceremony (same-sex civil unions were
recognized in Colorado.

And rightly so.

Not under the law.

Not under *Colorado* law? The U.S. Constitution trumps that where it say in
the First Amendment:


"....or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


This bakery is either allowed "...the free exercise thereof..." or it isn't.


And if it isn't, then ALL freedom of religion in this country is dead, not
just for Christians, but for Jews and Islamics as well. And the Constitution means nothing.

And it had nothing to do with whether it was called a
"marriage" or not, since within the state of Colorado it was not EC>recognized as a marriage.

Then...why `celibrate' it to begin with?


By the way...if `same-sex' marriage isn't legal in Colorado, this bakery is well within its rights to refuse to participate in a situation that is AGAINST Colorado law!





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

On 03-09-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

Doesn't change the fact that the first baker broke the law. Same as EC>employment discrimination. If an employer discriminates against you in a EC>hiring decision, they cannot defend themselves by saying "well, SOMEONE EC>hired them, so no harm done."

So...these two same-sex sodomites, who are `married' in Massachusetts...go

all > the way to Colorado to `celebrate'!

Other way around. Apparently they lived in Colorado and went to EC>Massachusetts to get married, since they couldn't do that in Colorado.

So the baker would not have been "participating" in any way in the EC>marriage, since it had already happened, and the baker said he would have EC>refused to bake a cake for a purely NON-religious civil union celebration EC>so it really had nothing to do with religion or marriage.

Paint it any way you like. Both the baker and you and I talking here KNOW this is for two same-sex sodomites. Which flies in the face of the baker's strongly held religious beliefs.


These two clowns go all the way to Massachusetts to get `married'. And,
instead of doing their celibration THERE, they come back and walk into the
very first bakery they espy on the boulevard, order a cake to `celibrate'
their (lower voice, look over both shoulders) same-sex wedding\civil union,
get turned down. A different bakery suddenly steps up out of nowhere, and volunteers to make the cake. And the innocent, casual ACLU...which just happened to be in the neighborhood (quite by accident, you understand), steps up and takes the Christian bakery to court for violation of Colorado law!


A question arises:


Why the *ACLU*? Where's a city or county prosecutor? Who instituted charges to begin with? Ah...the *ACLU* did, right?


Is appearing more and more to be a putup job.





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

On 03-08-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

Lending or selling someone a car does not
make you a participant in whatever they DO with that car later. And if
you know they are going to rob a bank and do not report it, that makes you >> an accessory to the crime whether you lent them the car or not.

And if you are a Christian baker who KNOWS a wedding cake ordered from you

is >intended to celebrate a s-called `wedding' between two same-sex EC>sodomites, and > you bake it for them anyway, that makes you an accessory

to sodomy! Not at all. It would make you an "accessory to marriage," EC>which is NOT a crime. If the marriage were a crime, then EVERYONE who EC>just KNEW about it without reporting it to the police would be an EC>accessory to the marriage. But it makes no difference, since it is not a EC>crime. Now that you know the couple was married in Massachusetts, that EC>makes you as much of an "accessory" as the baker.

And it couldn't possibly make anyone an accessory to any sex that the EC>couple might have, since the marriage and the sex are two completely EC>different things. Since the sex would be legal, with or without the EC>marriage, the whole idea of being an accessory to it is once again EC>meaningless.

You can't have it both ways. Either same-sex marriage is illegal in Colorado, or it isn't. If its `illegal', the baker refusing to participate in it is the same as refusing to be an accessory to a crime.





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it.

You introduced the idea when you turned your objection to how they may or
may not have sex into an objection to their marriage.

You are wrong (again).

Your objection to same-sex marriage is based on your objection to certain sexual practices. You even refer to those who are emotionally attracted to people of the same sex as "sodomites" even though a given person may have NEVER
had sex of ANY kind. I am sorry you cannot see this.

Two people can get married for immigration purposes, or for spousal
benefits, or for emotional but nonsexual reasons.

None of which applies in THIS case.

You have no way of knowing that.

I know two people (a widow and a widower who had been lifelong friends
of each other) who got married in their 70s, because he was terminally
ill and she wanted to move in and care for him. I have no idea whether they >> had sex or not, and I have no interest in knowing.

Again, none of that applies in THIS case.

Again, you know nothing of their personal lives. There are also rare instances where couples may get married (same-sex or not) and yet abstain because one spouse is HIV positive.

You do not think same-sex couples should have sex with each other. You
have made that clear. But that has no necessary connection to marriage.

You're wrong (again!). I have not specifically stated any such thing!

To most people, saying "that is immoral" carries a pretty direct implication of
"people shouldn't do it." Over the years you have made your views pretty clear on the subject.

Looked up the Colorado case. Some interesting details.
First, same-sex marriage was not recognized in Colorado. As far as the
baker was concerned, it was not a "marriage" at all.

So then...what's the court case all about?

The violation of Colorado's law.

*What* Colorado law?

The Colorado law on discrimination in public accommodations.

In part: "24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
marital status, national origin, or ancestry."

Second, they had ALREADY gotten married in Massachusetts, where it was
legally recognized. This was a cake to celebrate the Mass. wedding well >>> AFTER the fact. The baker could not have possibly been a participant in >>> the marriage in any way, since it had ALREADY HAPPENED before the two men

So then, in other words, `sodomy' was already involved

Again, I do not know and do not care what they did before or after the
marriage. They were married before they ever MET the baker, so he could
not possibly have been a "participant" in the marriage. And baking a cake >> would not make him a participant in anything they may have done before or
after the marriage.

Then why (pray tell) come all the way out to this city in Colorado

I believe they lived there.

Two same-sex sodomites, whom you NOW say already LIVED in Colorado (where same-sex marriage isn't legal), traveled to Massachusetts and got `married' (where same-sex marriage IS legal), they come BACK to Colorado and want to celebrate their `same-sex' marriage (where same-sex `marriage' is ILLegal!).

I looked it up when you first asked why they went to Colorado. They lived in Colorado. And same-sex marriage is not "illegal" in Colorado. It just is not recognized as a marriage. So as far as the Colorado baker was concerned, there wasn't even an official marriage in Colorado that he could POSSIBLY participate
in by any stretch of the words. It was just a cake.

They go to a bakery, which happens (by the shearest of coincidences) to be owned and operated by a strongly-Christian person, to order a wedding cake to celibrate a same-sex marriage (which, in Colorado is ILLegal), are refused by the bakery on religious grounds.
And the *ACLU* (which just `happened' to be walking by at the time) suddenly drags the bakery into court!

The couple complained to the Civil Rights Division. The Colorado Attorney General filed a formal complaint against the baker. There was a hearing before
a judge. I believe the ACLU provided legal assistance to the couple, but the central action was taken by the state government.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Paint it any way you like. Both the baker and you and I talking here KNOW this >is for two same-sex sodomites. Which flies in the face of the baker's strongly
held religious beliefs.

Since he would have refused to bake anything for a purely secular commemoration
having nothing to do with the institution of marriage, religious beliefs about marriage had nothing to do with it.

Why the *ACLU*? Where's a city or county prosecutor? Who instituted charges to
begin with? Ah...the *ACLU* did, right?

The state Attorney General.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-10-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

Paint it any way you like. Both the baker and you and I talking here KNOW >this is for two same-sex sodomites. Which flies in the face of the
baker's strongly > held religious beliefs.

Since he would have refused to bake anything for a purely secular EC>commemoration having nothing to do with the institution of marriage, EC>religious beliefs about marriage had nothing to do with it.

It most certainly did.


It doesn't matter what the state of Massechusetts calls it...it doesn't matter what the state of Colorado calls it. It is what it is: Two same-sex sodomites celebrating their sodomite relationship, which Massechusetts calls a `marriage', and Colorado calls a `civil union'.


You can call a bank robbery a `non-depositor withdrawal', but its still a bank robbery. You can call running a red light a `non-stop rush to get to work on time, but its still a traffic offense.


You can call a celebration of two same-sex sodomites going into a relationship `they' call a `marriage' in Massechusetts, and a `civil union' in Colorado, a lot of things, but its still a celebration of `sodomy'. And to a devout Christian, taking part in such a thing on ANY level, is strictly against their religious beliefs. If this sodomite-same-sex couple can get this Christian bakery to participate on ANY level with their celebration of sodomy, they (the bakery) would then open themselves to the possibility of more and more same- sex sodomites wanting cakes to celebrate their sodomite relationship (`civil union, `marriage' or whatever), and both Christianity AND American culture
take another hit.


By the way...this morning when I went onto the InterNet to my homepage, I saw
a headline about some prison inmate in Iowa who just won a fight to have pre- packaged food served to him, because his religion forbids even the cooking vessels that have had food forbidden by his religion, to be used to make food HE eats!


Now...his religion? (get a cup of coffee, cause this is gonna take a couple of minutes) Bochansanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan! Its usually refered to as *BAPS....(I wonder why)! So, for brevity, we'll call it BAPS
too.


Now according to the news item, this guy has been a BAPS since he was born.
Its a Hindu sect which believes that no animal should die for a meal! I can only imagine this guy's never tasted venison or buffaloe meat, or he'd switch to a different sect.


Anyway, the point is this;


Here's a prison inmate who's being granted special difference for their `religious freedom'! Even behind bars while serving a sentence! He's doing 25 years, by the way, for stalking and attempting to murder a former girl friend. (an `honor killing'?)


A *prison* inmate claiming devotion to some weird, off-the-wall Hindu religion form, gets HIS Constitutionally-guaranteed rights protected due to dietary objections.

A *Christian businessman* gets HIS Constitutionally-guaranteed rights ignored over a couple of same-sex sodomites!


My guess is...this case (with the two sodomites) should go to higher courts on the Christian's behalf, and this prison inmate's Constitutional right to Religiouos Freedom being upheld used as a precedent!

---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

On 03-10-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it.

You introduced the idea when you turned your objection to how they may or
may not have sex into an objection to their marriage.

You are wrong (again).

Your objection to same-sex marriage is based on your objection to certain EC>sexual practices. You even refer to those who are emotionally attracted to EC>people of the same sex as "sodomites" even though a given person may have EC>NEVER had sex of ANY kind. I am sorry you cannot see this.

You brought this up as a (very poor) strawman to cover your confusion over what's actually going on in this case.


This is a case of two same-sex sodomites getting `married' in Massechusetts (where sodomite marriage is legal), wanting to `celebrate' that in Colorado, and wanting to make a Christian baker participate by baking them a cake that does so.


Thereby, making the Christian baker a participant-after-the-fact (which
alREADY took place in Massechusetts) of a celebration of a same-sex sodomite `civil union' in Colorado.


So far in this case, I don't see anyone claiming this whole thing is `for immigration purposes' or any claim that they (either one or both) were merely `emotionally attracted to each other only and no sex was involved', or merely so `one could take care of the other', or `spousal benefits'...or any of the other strawmen you've tossed up to try to win your case.


The bottom line is:


Two same-sex sodomites want to force a Christian baker to help them celebrate their sodomite relationship.


The Christian baker refused on religious grounds. The sodomites, with the aid of the *ACLU*, drag this baker into court, and the case is hanging there right now.


By the way...sex between two people of the same sex is `sodomy'. It has been defined as such since the days of Abraham and Lot, when the two cities Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed over the practice of homosexuality (among other things).


Neither you, nor homosexuals privy to this conversation between the two of us, may like that designation, but thats what it is. Sodomy. It ain't a pretty title, it doesn't express any `gaity' or `love' of any kind. Thats just what
it is. *I* didn't invent the title, nor did *I* invent the practice of sodomy. It was way...way before my time. You cannot call homosexuals the four-letter *H* word, or the *F* word which also means a part of a bundle of sticks; they are considered `hate speech'.


But what they are hasn't changed in many thousands of years (about three, I think); sodomites. And what they do is still called `sodomy'. And that is what *I* will call it.


Oh and another thing; As far as I know, no claims by these two sodomites has come out in this case about any of the following:


They got `married' but aren't having sex.

They got married for `immigration' purposes.

They got married for `spousal benefits'.

They got married so `one could take care of the other'.


All strawmen, until one, or both of them, comes out and publically declares
any one or more of those side issues.

Two people can get married for immigration purposes, or for spousal
benefits, or for emotional but nonsexual reasons.

None of which applies in THIS case.

You have no way of knowing that.

I know two people (a widow and a widower who had been lifelong friends
of each other) who got married in their 70s, because he was terminally
ill and she wanted to move in and care for him. I have no idea whether
they had sex or not, and I have no interest in knowing.

Another strawman. Neither of these two are in their `70s', nor is either of them `terminally ill'.

Again, you know nothing of their personal lives. There are also rare EC>instances where couples may get married (same-sex or not) and yet abstain EC>because one spouse is HIV positive.

To date, neither one has made any such claim.


So, so far all you have is a whole bunch of strawmen, which you've punched the crap out of for several message packets, and are no closer to the facts than you were when this conversation started.


The facts are simple:


Two same-sex sodomites want a cake to celebrate what, to a devout Christian,
is sodomy. `Sodomy' is a grave evil to a practicing, devout Christian, and
they would, on religious grounds, refuse to participate in any way.


Where a devout, practicing Christian might look the other way in a case of `immigration purposes', or `spousal benefits' (both of which, by the way, constitute fraud), it would be impossible for a devout, practicing Christian
to ignore the evil of sodomy on ANY level.


And, again, the question is simple:


Either Freedom of Religion is real, or it isn't.


How would a *Hindu* prison inmate doing 25 years for attempting to murder a former girl friend, have THEIR religious freedom protected, but a *Christian* businessman be denied theirs?






---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Since he would have refused to bake anything for a purely secular
commemoration having nothing to do with the institution of marriage,
religious beliefs about marriage had nothing to do with it.

It most certainly did.
It doesn't matter what the state of Massechusetts calls it...it doesn't matter
what the state of Colorado calls it. It is what it is: Two same-sex sodomites celebrating their sodomite relationship, which Massechusetts calls a `marriage', and Colorado calls a `civil union'.

A civil union is a purely secular thing, so any religious objections based on what the Bible says about marriage would not apply.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Your objection to same-sex marriage is based on your objection to certain
sexual practices. You even refer to those who are emotionally attracted to >> people of the same sex as "sodomites" even though a given person may have
NEVER had sex of ANY kind. I am sorry you cannot see this.

You brought this up as a (very poor) strawman to cover your confusion over what's actually going on in this case.

You insist on using your objections to a sex act as an objection to marriage. THAT is a classic example of a "strawman" argument.

I pointed out that the two were very different things, which is not even close to being a "strawman" argument.

This is a case of two same-sex sodomites getting `married' in Massechusetts (where sodomite marriage is legal), wanting to `celebrate' that in Colorado, and wanting to make a Christian baker participate by baking them a cake that does so.

It has nothing to do with sodomy, and it has nothing to do with "participating."

So far in this case, I don't see anyone claiming this whole thing is `for immigration purposes' or any claim that they (either one or both) were merely `emotionally attracted to each other only and no sex was involved', or merely so `one could take care of the other', or `spousal benefits'...or any of the other strawmen you've tossed up to try to win your case.

I made no claims as to why they got married. I pointed out that you WERE making assumptions, and that your assumptions are only assumptions that have no
basis in fact. I was not tossing up strawmen, I was knocking them down. The term has an actual meaning.

By the way...sex between two people of the same sex is `sodomy'. It has been defined as such since the days of Abraham and Lot, when the two cities Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed over the practice of homosexuality (among other things).

Historically incorrect. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas goes into the history of sodomy laws.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Opinion_of_the_Court

The term covers different-sex as well as same-sex, as well as a wide variety of
specific sex acts. The application you are making has only been common in the last few decades. More generally, through history, the term has been used for ANY sex act that is not for the purpose of procreation. If you really want to use the term "sodomite" to apply to anyone who has given or received oral sex with anyone of either sex, anyone who has engaged in sex where either participant had a vasectomy or tubal ligation, or where a condom or any other contraceptive was involved, well, that would be more historically accurate, but
it would not support your argument very well.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03-12-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

Your objection to same-sex marriage is based on your objection to certain
sexual practices. You even refer to those who are emotionally attracted to >> people of the same sex as "sodomites" even though a given person may have
NEVER had sex of ANY kind. I am sorry you cannot see this.

You brought this up as a (very poor) strawman to cover your confusion over what's actually going on in this case.

You insist on using your objections to a sex act as an objection to EC>marriage. THAT is a classic example of a "strawman" argument.

You are trying to make *ME* the subject of this discussion, in order to cover your objection to the baker having his right to refuse to participate in a same-sex sodomite `marriage' because `sodomy' violates the baker's strongly- held religious principles.


It has nothing whatever to do with *what* I do or do not object to.

I pointed out that the two were very different things, which is not even EC>close to being a "strawman" argument.

This is a same-sex sodomite `marriage'. The "strawman" argument you recently presented was all over the board.

This is a case of two same-sex sodomites getting `married' in Massechusetts (where sodomite marriage is legal), wanting to `celebrate' that in
Colorado, and wanting to make a Christian baker participate by baking
them a cake that does so.

It has nothing to do with sodomy, and it has nothing to do with EC>"participating."

And a male and female couple getting `married' has nothing to do with sex relations, and the preacher `marrying' them is not a participant in that
union, either.


The preacher, the reception caterer, the flower shop, the tuxedo and wedding dress renters, the baker who bakes the wedding cake....


ALL are participants in what is KNOWN to be occuring: a formal cerimony to celibrate a joining of two people who the whole world KNOWS are in all likelyhood going to engage in sexual relations!


Its even sometimes refered to as a sort of `industry'!

So far in this case, I don't see anyone claiming this whole thing is `for immigration purposes' or any claim that they (either one or both) were
merely `emotionally attracted to each other only and no sex was
involved', or merely so `one could take care of the other', or `spousal benefits'...or any of the other strawmen you've tossed up to try to win
your case.

I made no claims as to why they got married.

Nor did I. It is implicit in the very act of `marriage'. Its older than the modern age we live in.

I pointed out
that you WERE making assumptions, and that your assumptions are only EC>assumptions that have no basis in fact. I was not tossing up strawmen, I EC>was knocking them down. The term has an actual meaning.

By the way...sex between two people of the same sex is `sodomy'. It has
been defined as such since the days of Abraham and Lot, when the two
cities Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed over the practice of
homosexuality (among other things).

Historically incorrect. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Lawrence EC>v Texas goes into the history of sodomy laws.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Opinion_of_the_Court

Historically correct. To a devout, practicing Christian, the Bible supercedes any court of the United States.

The term covers different-sex as well as same-sex, as well as a wide EC>variety of specific sex acts. The application you are making has only EC>been common in the last few decades. More generally, through history, the EC>term has been used for ANY sex act that is not for the purpose of EC>procreation. If you really want to use the term "sodomite" to apply to EC>anyone who has given or received oral sex with anyone of either sex, EC>anyone who has engaged in sex where either participant had a vasectomy or EC>tubal ligation, or where a condom or any other contraceptive was involved, EC>well, that would be more historically accurate, but it would not support EC>your argument very well.

You are all over the board, here. We both know perfectly well what we are discussing, without all that stuff you've thrown in to cover your weak argument.


The bottom line is, was, and will remain:


Two same-sex sodomites went to a Christian baker to order a cake to celibrate
a same-sex sodomite `marriage'.


Such a `marriage' is strictly against the deeply-held religious principles of the baker, and they refused, on religious grounds, to be a participant in any way to sodomy.


There is either the right to practice one's religion in this nation, or their isn't.


If these two same-sex sodomites succeed in prevailing over this Christian baker, then the First Amendment of the Constitution is no longer valid.


Incidently, if this part of the First Amendment gets shredded, the entire Amendment becomes meaningless, and `Freedom of the Press' is no longer valid, either. Very scary.


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

On 03-12-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

Since he would have refused to bake anything for a purely secular
commemoration having nothing to do with the institution of marriage,
religious beliefs about marriage had nothing to do with it.

It most certainly did.
It doesn't matter what the state of Massechusetts calls it...it doesn't >matter what the state of Colorado calls it. It is what it is: Two
same-sex sodomites celebrating their sodomite relationship, which >Massechusetts calls a `marriage', and Colorado calls a `civil union'.

A civil union is a purely secular thing, so any religious objections based EC>on what the Bible says about marriage would not apply.

You can dress it up in nice pretty clothing, suround it with a whole garden full of roses, and call it a birthday party if you like.


It doesn't change the fact that it is a celibration of a same-sex sodomite `marriage'.


Taking part in such is against the strongly-held religious principles and beliefs of the baker in question.


There is either Freedom of Religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution, or there isn't.


The First Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.


In the same Amendment, it also guarantees Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of
the Press.


If the Freedom of Religion is cancelled by these two sodomites, then both Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, become null and void at the same time.


I strongly suspect that, if this baker was a devout believer of Islam, we
would not be having this discussion. This case would not even exist.


If these two sodomites win this case, I suspect also that the next step will
be to force Christian churches to allow same-sex sodomite weddings, regardless of their strongly-held objections to the sin of sodomy.


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

You insist on using your objections to a sex act as an objection to EC>marriage. THAT is a classic example of a "strawman" argument.

You are trying to make *ME* the subject of this discussion

Not at all. You are voicing your objections. I am discussing those objections. A marriage is not a sex act.

This is a same-sex sodomite `marriage'.

A marriage is not a sex act.

And a male and female couple getting `married' has nothing to do with

sex

relations,

Obviously.

and the preacher `marrying' them is not a participant in that
union, either.

Obviously wrong. A marriage doesn't happen without someone performing the marriage. A marriage can happen without a cake. Preachers can decline to perform a marriage for any number of reasons. And preachers are not public accommodations. Which makes your example awfully irrelevant.

By the way...sex between two people of the same sex is `sodomy'. It

has

been defined as such since the days of Abraham and Lot, when the two >cities Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed over the practice of >homosexuality (among other things).

Historically incorrect. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in

Lawrence

v Texas goes into the history of sodomy laws.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Opinion_of_the_Court

Historically correct. To a devout, practicing Christian, the Bible

supercedes

any court of the United States.

The term covers different-sex as well as same-sex, as well as a wide EC>variety of specific sex acts. The application you are making has

only

been common in the last few decades. More generally, through

history, the

term has been used for ANY sex act that is not for the purpose of EC>procreation. If you really want to use the term "sodomite" to apply

to

anyone who has given or received oral sex with anyone of either sex, EC>anyone who has engaged in sex where either participant had a

vasectomy or

tubal ligation, or where a condom or any other contraceptive was

involved,

well, that would be more historically accurate, but it would not

support

your argument very well.

The Court was not RULING on the meaning of the word! The Court was
reviewing the literature on the meaning of the word!

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Taking part in such is against the strongly-held religious principles

and

beliefs of the baker in question.

As the judge in the Colorado case wrote: "Because Respondents’ objection
goes beyond just the act of “marriage,” and extends to any union of a
same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents’ real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage. Of course,
nothing in § 24-34-601(2) compels Respondents to recognize the legality of
a same-sex wedding or to endorse such weddings. The law simply requires
that Respondents and other actors in the marketplace serve same-sex couples
in exactly the same way they would serve heterosexual ones."

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Re: Arizona discrimination
By: EARL CROASMUN to TIM RICHARDSON on Fri Mar 14 2014 11:29 am

As the judge in the Colorado case wrote: "Because Respondents’ objection goes beyond just the act of “marriage,” and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents’ real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage. Of course, nothing in § 24-34-601(2) compels Respondents to recognize the legality of a same-sex wedding or to endorse such weddings. The law simply requires that Respondents and other actors in the marketplace serve same-sex couples in exactly the same way they would serve heterosexual ones."

By this logic a Christian couple can hire a Muslim caterer and force them to serve ham, pork chops and liqour at their wedding and the Muslim has to agree.

While it's none of my business what someone believes, in this land we are free to beleive whatever we choose... no matter how foward or backward thinking it is. A person should have the right to RESPECTFULLY object due to their religious convictions ANYTHING they choose... the key word is RESPECTFULLY not judgementally.

Allen

... Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
--- SBBSecho 3.00-Win32
* Origin: LiveWire - Derby City USA - livewirebbs.ddns.net (1:2320/100)

-=[ On 05-06-16 09:11, Allen Prunty wrote to All below: ]=-
-=[ Re: Arizona discrimination ]=-

Hi Allen Prunty!

By this logic a Christian couple can hire a Muslim caterer and force
them to serve ham, pork chops and liqour at their wedding and the
Muslim has to agree.

By the same token, I don't think a Muslim would work with Christians anyway. It disgusts me that everyone is free to pray to their deity but everyone goes insane at the mention of someone praying to The Father in Yeshua's name.

Yeshua did say that this will happen before His return.:)

Cheers,

Bryan
Email: bhandfield(at)me(dot)com

... I used to read books. Now I read .qwk files.

--- MultiMail/Darwin v0.50
--- SBBSecho 2.26-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online bbs.dmine.net (1:275/89)