EC>Not really the baker's concern as to whether a wedding is "necessary" or
EC>not.


Firstly, where it is NOT the baker's concern about the `wedding', it IS the
baker's concern about what he's seen as becoming part and parcel to.


Sodomy, and same-sex `weddings' between two sodomites BECOMES his concern when
two same-sex sodomites walk into his place of business and try to make HIM a
party to it all against his strongly-held Christian beliefs.


THEN it certainly becomes the bakers' concern.


EC>Otherwise the act that you consider immoral is going to take
EC>place, with or >> without a cake, with or without a wedding, with or
EC>without any marriage of any type.


Secondly, what *I* consider immoral isn't any part of this discussion.


We are talking about a *Christian* baker, who has strongly-held Christian
beliefs, who refuses to be any part of what they KNOW to be a sodomite
relationship.


And before you come back with the `celibacy' argument, I must inform you that
the notion of `marriage' between two people (whatever their sex) isn't
typically about `celibacy'. that would be a VERY rare instance. The very term
`marriage' between two people carries the `physical' side of the intended
relationship in an implicit, usually-unspoken manner. But its there, and
everyone knows it.


So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it. This is a `homosexual' relationship,
and `sodomy' is involved.


EC>Looked up the Colorado case.  Some interesting details.  First, same-sex
EC>marriage was not recognized in Colorado.  As far as the baker was
EC>concerned, it was not a "marriage" at all.


So then...what's the court case all about?


EC>Second, they had ALREADY gotten married in Massachusetts, where it was
EC>legally recognized.  This was a cake to celebrate the Mass. wedding well
EC>AFTER the fact.  The baker could not have possibly been a participant in
EC>the marriage in any way, since it had ALREADY HAPPENED before the two men


So then, in other words, `sodomy' was already involved (pretending that these
two same-sex sodomites were both `virgins' before this sham wedding in MASS
took place).


Then why (pray tell) come all the way out to this city in Colorado, to THIS
bakery, and do a court case for being refused a `wedding' cake celibrating a
sodomy-relationship between two same-sex sodomites?


This whole thing begins to smack of a put-up job.


EC>Third, the baker testified that he would have refused
EC>to bake a cake regardless of whether it was a "wedding" or a "commitment
EC>ceremony" or a "civil union" ceremony (same-sex civil unions were
EC>recognized in Colorado.


And rightly so. Scripture in the bible is very specific and clear on this
matter. A God-fearing, righteous man does not even allow the appearance of
evil to enter into their life. That is taught in several places in the bible.


First Thesalonians, chapter 5, verses 15 through 22 (I won't quote them all,
just the relevant ones):


15: See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that
which is good, both among yourselves and to all men.

21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22: Abstain from all appearance of evil.

1st Peter, chapter 3, verse 11:

11: Let him eschew evil and do good;


You cannot be a Christian, knowing full well the act or even implication of
sodomy is an evil, and take part in it on ANY level.

A Christian would know from scriptural teachings that sodomy is considered a
great evil by God.

The Hebrew word `qadesh' in Hebrew texts is the word meaning males who engage
in sexual relationships with other men or animals.


To a Christian, the act of sodomy is a great evil, forbidden by God. And, to a
Christian, even the appearance of evil is abhorant, and to be avoided at all
costs.


EC>So it had nothing to do with any legal or
EC>religious implications of a "marriage." He just did not like the idea that
EC>two gay men were together in any way by any name.


You bring in a fact not in any of the evidence. You cannot possibly know what
he `just did not like'.


It isn't a matter of `what he likes'.


The bottom line is; he is a practicing Christian. And by Christian scriptures,
he is forbidden to do evil, or participate in evil on any level. Or even allow
the appearance of evil into his life or any aspect of his life; business,
family, or private and personal.


And THAT is what is being attacked, here. His Christianity.


If the sodomites can take this guy down, its just one more step down the road
to destroying all moral and principled life in this country.


I see it as either Religious Freedom is real or it isn't. If these two
sodomites win against this baker, Religious Freedom becomes a things of the
past. One more tear in the Constitution.





---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)