On 03-07-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:   
      
   >> But this baker is being pilloried because he will not sign onto the   
   EC>wedding >> Again, baking a cake does not involve signing onto the wedding.   
      
      
   >Yes it does. And if it doesn't, then no prosecutor can ever bring someone   
   >into >court for furnishing the car used in a bank robbery. No citizen can   
   >ever again be prosecuted for furnishing the gun that is used to murder   
   >someone.   
      
      
   EC>Completely different.   
      
      
   Not at all. Which you admit in your very next paragraph:   
      
      
   EC>Lending or selling someone a car does not   
   EC>make you a participant in whatever they DO with that car later.   
      
      
   Not if you DON't KNOW what they're going to do with it.   
      
      
   However:   
      
      
   EC>And if   
   EC>you know they are going to rob a bank and do not report it, that makes you   
   EC>an accessory to the crime whether you lent them the car or not.   
      
      
   And if you are a Christian baker who KNOWS a wedding cake ordered from you is   
   intended to celebrate a s-called `wedding' between two same-sex sodomites, and   
   you bake it for them anyway, that makes you an accessory to sodomy!   
      
      
   >>> The wedding can happen with or without a photographer.   
      
      
   >> It can happen with or without a wedding cake, also.   
      
      
   >> Exactly.   
      
   > Ah...then you AGREE that the cake really has no bearing on whether or not   
   the > wedding itself occurs?   
      
      
   EC>That was exactly what I said.  In this case the wedding HAD ALREADY   
   EC>HAPPENED in fact, so the photographer and the baker had no connection to   
   EC>it HAPPENING.   
      
      
   Then....what, exactly, is the problem these two same-sex sodomites have? If   
   they're already `married'....what's the beef? The baker is within their rights   
   to refuse to be a party to sodomy, or even any appearance of participating in   
   such on religious grounds.   
      
      
   Freedom of Religion is either real, or it isn't. I strongly suspect that, if   
   this were a bakery owned and operated by a family of Islamics, we would not be   
   having this exchange because this would never have come up in a court.   
      
      
   Why take a case to a court over a *Christian* bakery? Feels like a put-up job   
   to me.   
      
      
   ---   
   *Durango b301 #PE*    
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)