EC>Not really the baker's concern as to whether a wedding is "necessary" or   
   EC>not.   
      
      
   Firstly, where it is NOT the baker's concern about the `wedding', it IS the   
   baker's concern about what he's seen as becoming part and parcel to.   
      
      
   Sodomy, and same-sex `weddings' between two sodomites BECOMES his concern when   
   two same-sex sodomites walk into his place of business and try to make HIM a   
   party to it all against his strongly-held Christian beliefs.   
      
      
   THEN it certainly becomes the bakers' concern.   
      
      
   EC>Otherwise the act that you consider immoral is going to take   
   EC>place, with or >> without a cake, with or without a wedding, with or   
   EC>without any marriage of any type.   
      
      
   Secondly, what *I* consider immoral isn't any part of this discussion.   
      
      
   We are talking about a *Christian* baker, who has strongly-held Christian   
   beliefs, who refuses to be any part of what they KNOW to be a sodomite   
   relationship.   
      
      
   And before you come back with the `celibacy' argument, I must inform you that   
   the notion of `marriage' between two people (whatever their sex) isn't   
   typically about `celibacy'. that would be a VERY rare instance. The very term   
   `marriage' between two people carries the `physical' side of the intended   
   relationship in an implicit, usually-unspoken manner. But its there, and   
   everyone knows it.   
      
      
   So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it. This is a `homosexual' relationship,   
   and `sodomy' is involved.   
      
      
   EC>Looked up the Colorado case.  Some interesting details.  First, same-sex   
   EC>marriage was not recognized in Colorado.  As far as the baker was   
   EC>concerned, it was not a "marriage" at all.   
      
      
   So then...what's the court case all about?   
      
      
   EC>Second, they had ALREADY gotten married in Massachusetts, where it was   
   EC>legally recognized.  This was a cake to celebrate the Mass. wedding well   
   EC>AFTER the fact.  The baker could not have possibly been a participant in   
   EC>the marriage in any way, since it had ALREADY HAPPENED before the two men   
      
      
   So then, in other words, `sodomy' was already involved (pretending that these   
   two same-sex sodomites were both `virgins' before this sham wedding in MASS   
   took place).   
      
      
   Then why (pray tell) come all the way out to this city in Colorado, to THIS   
   bakery, and do a court case for being refused a `wedding' cake celibrating a   
   sodomy-relationship between two same-sex sodomites?   
      
      
   This whole thing begins to smack of a put-up job.   
      
      
   EC>Third, the baker testified that he would have refused   
   EC>to bake a cake regardless of whether it was a "wedding" or a "commitment   
   EC>ceremony" or a "civil union" ceremony (same-sex civil unions were   
   EC>recognized in Colorado.   
      
      
   And rightly so. Scripture in the bible is very specific and clear on this   
   matter. A God-fearing, righteous man does not even allow the appearance of   
   evil to enter into their life. That is taught in several places in the bible.   
      
      
   First Thesalonians, chapter 5, verses 15 through 22 (I won't quote them all,   
   just the relevant ones):   
      
      
   15: See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that   
   which is good, both among yourselves and to all men.   
      
   21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.   
      
   22: Abstain from all appearance of evil.   
      
   1st Peter, chapter 3, verse 11:   
      
   11: Let him eschew evil and do good;   
      
      
   You cannot be a Christian, knowing full well the act or even implication of   
   sodomy is an evil, and take part in it on ANY level.   
      
   A Christian would know from scriptural teachings that sodomy is considered a   
   great evil by God.   
      
   The Hebrew word `qadesh' in Hebrew texts is the word meaning males who engage   
   in sexual relationships with other men or animals.   
      
      
   To a Christian, the act of sodomy is a great evil, forbidden by God. And, to a   
   Christian, even the appearance of evil is abhorant, and to be avoided at all   
   costs.   
      
      
   EC>So it had nothing to do with any legal or   
   EC>religious implications of a "marriage." He just did not like the idea that   
   EC>two gay men were together in any way by any name.   
      
      
   You bring in a fact not in any of the evidence. You cannot possibly know what   
   he `just did not like'.   
      
      
   It isn't a matter of `what he likes'.   
      
      
   The bottom line is; he is a practicing Christian. And by Christian scriptures,   
   he is forbidden to do evil, or participate in evil on any level. Or even allow   
   the appearance of evil into his life or any aspect of his life; business,   
   family, or private and personal.   
      
      
   And THAT is what is being attacked, here. His Christianity.   
      
      
   If the sodomites can take this guy down, its just one more step down the road   
   to destroying all moral and principled life in this country.   
      
      
   I see it as either Religious Freedom is real or it isn't. If these two   
   sodomites win against this baker, Religious Freedom becomes a things of the   
   past. One more tear in the Constitution.   
      
      
      
      
      
   ---   
   *Durango b301 #PE*    
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)