Text 6778, 195 rader
Skriven 2014-03-10 11:58:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av EARL CROASMUN
Ärende: Arizona discrimination
==============================
On 03-08-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

> So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it.


EC>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.


EC>People can have sex without marriage.


True. Done all the time.


EC>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.


EC>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.


EC>I know two people (a widow and a widower who had been lifelong friends
EC>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.


EC>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.

EC>Looked up the Colorado case.  Some interesting details.
EC>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?


EC>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


EC>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


EC>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.


EC>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.


EC>And it had nothing to do with whether it was called a
EC>"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)