Just a sample of the Echomail archive
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
|  Message 120  |
|  Earl Croasmun to Tim Richardson  |
|  Arizona discrimination  |
|  07 Mar 14 13:49:18  |
 >>> But those "beliefs" you talk about have nothing to do with the wedding. >>> You believe that a sexual act between two people of the same sex is >>> immoral. That has nothing to do with the wedding, let alone the cake. >>> People can have sex outside of marriage, so the act of getting married >>> just changes the relationship between the two people. It does not make >>> the marriage immoral. >>> Baking a cake for what you KNOW is a `marriage' that goes against your own >> > Christian principles and Scriptural teachings, makes YOU a participant in >> > what Christians see as a sinful, evil act; sodomy. >> Only if you believe that both parties were celibate and would remain >> celibate forever if they did not get married. > Their `celibacy' has nothing whatever to do with anything. Yes, it does. That is what you consider immoral. > If they intend to remain `celibate', no need for a `wedding' Not really the baker's concern as to whether a wedding is "necessary" or not. >> Otherwise the act that you consider immoral is going to take place, with or >> without a cake, with or without a wedding, with or without any marriage >> of any type. 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. 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 ever MET the baker. 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. So it had nothing to do with any legal or religious implications of a "marriage." He just did not like the idea that two gay men were together in any way by any name. --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38) |
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]