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)