You really should take notes, you've had strict scrutiny explained to you a number of times now and yet you still get the concept ass backwards. When it comes to the individual's right to enter into marriage, the state must prove the compelling interest served by LIMITING the right, not by expanding it. Marriage is OUR right, not a privilege bestowed upon us by the government, let alone "the church". Unless the government can demonstrate that there is a compelling interest served by their limiting our right to marry based on the sex of the otherwise legally qualified person we wish to marry, the restriction is unacceptable to the Constitution.So in other words you can’t provide ““a compelling governmental interest served by“ redefining marriage to include gay couples.
Since the concept of strict scrutiny comes up in the discussion of the rights of the baker to practice what he believes, let me explain that one to you too, one more time. The compelling state interest served by limiting his right to give the bum's rush to a gay couple, preventing just that kind of discrimination in the first place. These laws were decided to be a constitutionally acceptable limitation on individual rights in Colorado 52 years ago. Blaming God shouldn't make him or his actions entitled to special protection. Sorry.