>> 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)