>> But that does not change the fact that the first baker broke the law.   
      
   >!!!!!?????!!!  *Broke the law*? Broke WHAT law?   
      
   The state law in Colorado that forbids discrimination in public accommodations.   
    That was the basis of the whole court case.   
      
   > A *law* that a business   
   > person no longer has the right to refuse service to anyone?   
      
   That has not been the law for a long time.   
      
   > And if, as you say, a different baker `went to them'...then they got their   
   > fucking cake, and thats an end to it.   
      
   Doesn't change the fact that the first baker broke the law.  Same as   
   employment discrimination.  If an employer discriminates against you in a   
   hiring decision, they cannot defend themselves by saying "well, SOMEONE hired   
   them, so no harm done."   
      
   >So...these two same-sex sodomites, who are `married' in Massachusetts...go all   
   > the way to Colorado to `celebrate'!   
      
   Other way around.  Apparently they lived in Colorado and went to Massachusetts   
   to get married, since they couldn't do that in Colorado.   
      
   So the baker would not have been "participating" in any way in the marriage,   
   since it had already happened, and the baker said he would have refused to   
   bake a cake for a purely NON-religious civil union celebration so it really   
   had nothing to do with religion or marriage.   
      
   --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1   
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)