On 03-10-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:   
      
      
   >Paint it any way you like. Both the baker and you and I talking here KNOW   
   >this is for two same-sex sodomites. Which flies in the face of the   
   >baker's strongly > held religious beliefs.   
      
      
   EC>Since he would have refused to bake anything for a purely secular   
   EC>commemoration having nothing to do with the institution of marriage,   
   EC>religious beliefs about marriage had nothing to do with it.   
      
      
   It most certainly did.   
      
      
   It doesn't matter what the state of Massechusetts calls it...it doesn't matter   
   what the state of Colorado calls it. It is what it is: Two same-sex sodomites   
   celebrating their sodomite relationship, which Massechusetts calls a   
   `marriage', and Colorado calls a `civil union'.   
      
      
   You can call a bank robbery a `non-depositor withdrawal', but its still a bank   
   robbery. You can call running a red light a `non-stop rush to get to work on   
   time, but its still a traffic offense.   
      
      
   You can call a celebration of two same-sex sodomites going into a relationship   
   `they' call a `marriage' in Massechusetts, and a `civil union' in Colorado, a   
   lot of things, but its still a celebration of `sodomy'. And to a devout   
   Christian, taking part in such a thing on ANY level, is strictly against their   
   religious beliefs. If this sodomite-same-sex couple can get this Christian   
   bakery to participate on ANY level with their celebration of sodomy, they (the   
   bakery) would then open themselves to the possibility of more and more same-   
   sex sodomites wanting cakes to celebrate their sodomite relationship (`civil   
   union, `marriage' or whatever), and both Christianity AND American culture   
   take another hit.   
      
      
   By the way...this morning when I went onto the InterNet to my homepage, I saw   
   a headline about some prison inmate in Iowa who just won a fight to have pre-   
   packaged food served to him, because his religion forbids even the cooking   
   vessels that have had food forbidden by his religion, to be used to make food   
   HE eats!   
      
      
   Now...his religion? (get a cup of coffee, cause this is gonna take a couple of   
   minutes) Bochansanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan! Its usually   
   refered to as *BAPS....(I wonder why)! So, for brevity, we'll call it BAPS   
   too.   
      
      
   Now according to the news item, this guy has been a BAPS since he was born.   
   Its a Hindu sect which believes that no animal should die for a meal! I can   
   only imagine this guy's never tasted venison or buffaloe meat, or he'd switch   
   to a different sect.   
      
      
   Anyway, the point is this;   
      
      
   Here's a prison inmate who's being granted special difference for their   
   `religious freedom'! Even behind bars while serving a sentence! He's doing 25   
   years, by the way, for stalking and attempting to murder a former girl friend.   
   (an `honor killing'?)   
      
      
   A *prison* inmate claiming devotion to some weird, off-the-wall Hindu religion   
   form, gets HIS Constitutionally-guaranteed rights protected due to dietary   
   objections.   
      
   A *Christian businessman* gets HIS Constitutionally-guaranteed rights ignored   
   over a couple of same-sex sodomites!   
      
      
   My guess is...this case (with the two sodomites) should go to higher courts on   
   the Christian's behalf, and this prison inmate's Constitutional right to   
   Religiouos Freedom being upheld used as a precedent!   
      
   ---   
   *Durango b301 #PE*    
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)