Text 6759, 161 rader
Skriven 2014-03-06 00:04:00 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:


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.


EC>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.


EC>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
EC>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.


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.

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.


EC>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)