Text 6766, 130 rader
Skriven 2014-03-07 09:31:00 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:


>> 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.


EC>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'?


EC>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.


EC>In fact, if
EC>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.


EC>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.


EC>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)