Text 6758, 172 rader
Skriven 2014-03-05 12:22:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av EARL CROASMUN
Ärende: Arizona discrimination
==============================
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.


EC>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.


EC>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.


EC>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.


EC>If a baker refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple, I really
EC>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.


EC>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)