Text 6762, 67 rader
Skriven 2014-03-06 12:14:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av EARL CROASMUN
Ärende: Arizona discrimination
==============================
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;...'


EC>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?


EC>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.


EC>"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)