Text 6781, 129 rader
Skriven 2014-03-10 17:22:44 av Earl Croasmun (1:261/38)
   Kommentar till text 6778 av Tim Richardson (1:123/140)
Ärende: Arizona discrimination
==============================
>> So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it.

>> You introduced the idea when you turned your objection to how they may or
>> may not have sex into an objection to their marriage.

> You are wrong (again).

Your objection to same-sex marriage is based on your objection to certain
sexual practices. You even refer to those who are emotionally attracted to
people of the same sex as "sodomites" even though a given person may have NEVER
had sex of ANY kind. I am sorry you cannot see this.

>> Two people can get married for immigration purposes, or for spousal
>> benefits, or for emotional but nonsexual reasons.

> None of which applies in THIS case.

You have no way of knowing that.

>> I know two people (a widow and a widower who had been lifelong friends
>> of each other) who got married in their 70s, because he was terminally
>> ill and she wanted to move in and care for him. I have no idea whether they
>> had sex or not, and I have no interest in knowing.

> Again, none of that applies in THIS case.

Again, you know nothing of their personal lives. There are also rare instances
where couples may get married (same-sex or not) and yet abstain because one
spouse is HIV positive.

>> You do not think same-sex couples should have sex with each other.  You
>> have made that clear.  But that has no necessary connection to marriage.

> You're wrong (again!). I have not specifically stated any such thing!

To most people, saying "that is immoral" carries a pretty direct implication of
"people shouldn't do it." Over the years you have made your views pretty clear
on the subject.

>> Looked up the Colorado case.  Some interesting details.
>> First, same-sex marriage was not recognized in Colorado.  As far as the
>> baker was concerned, it was not a "marriage" at all.

>> So then...what's the court case all about?

>> The violation of Colorado's law.

> *What* Colorado law?

The Colorado law on discrimination in public accommodations.

In part: "24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation -
definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of
business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including
but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the
public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof;
any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation
facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage
parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health,
appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a
dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the
sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an
educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall,
auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether
indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church,
synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious
purposes.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or
indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a
place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish,
circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed
communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld
from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at
a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or
undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
marital status, national origin, or ancestry."

>>> 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

>> Again, I do not know and do not care what they did before or after the
>> marriage.  They were married before they ever MET the baker, so he could
>> not possibly have been a "participant" in the marriage.  And baking a cake
>> would not make him a participant in anything they may have done before or
>> after the marriage.

>> Then why (pray tell) come all the way out to this city in Colorado

>> I believe they lived there.

> 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!).

I looked it up when you first asked why they went to Colorado.  They lived in
Colorado.  And same-sex marriage is not "illegal" in Colorado.  It just is not
recognized as a marriage. So as far as the Colorado baker was concerned, there
wasn't even an official marriage in Colorado that he could POSSIBLY participate
in by any stretch of the words.  It was just a cake.

> 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!

The couple complained to the Civil Rights Division.  The Colorado Attorney
General filed a formal complaint against the baker.  There was a hearing before
a judge.  I believe the ACLU provided legal assistance to the couple, but the
central action was taken by the state government.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)