On 03-12-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

>> Since he would have refused to bake anything for a purely secular
>> commemoration having nothing to do with the institution of marriage,
>> 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'.


EC>A civil union is a purely secular thing, so any religious objections based
EC>on what the Bible says about marriage would not apply.


You can dress it up in nice pretty clothing, suround it with a whole garden
full of roses, and call it a birthday party if you like.


It doesn't change the fact that it is a celibration of a same-sex sodomite
`marriage'.


Taking part in such is against the strongly-held religious principles and
beliefs of the baker in question.


There is either Freedom of Religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution, or
there isn't.


The First Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting
the free exercise of religion.


In the same Amendment, it also guarantees Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of
the Press.


If the Freedom of Religion is cancelled by these two sodomites, then both Free
Speech and Freedom of the Press, become null and void at the same time.


I strongly suspect that, if this baker was a devout believer of Islam, we
would not be having this discussion. This case would not even exist.


If these two sodomites win this case, I suspect also that the next step will
be to force Christian churches to allow same-sex sodomite weddings, regardless
of their strongly-held objections to the sin of sodomy.


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