Non-responsive and fails to answer the question. Try again:The First Amendment of the Constitution.
Why should only a religious belief regarding who should be able to marry justify exemption from compliance with a law to the exclusion of other religious beliefs regarding marriage?
No they're not. Allowable combinations of "skin color" were an integral part of the marriage laws of almost all states, many from before independence was declared. Almost ⅓ of the states still had anti-miscegegation laws on the books when SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional in 1967.Skin color and the institution of marriage are two very different things.
You are both uneducated and a liar.
There is no effective difference between allowing discrimination against gays based on religious beliefs and discrimination against blacks based on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs were used to justify both slavery and segregation against blacks. You don't wish to acknowledge that fact because it not only undermines your argument, it also makes clear how immoral your argument really is.“No. AGAIN, we are NOT discussing skin color
So now you claim the baker doesn't believe in the institution of marriage? The fact he was willing to sell wedding cakes to opposite sex couples puts that to the lie.we are talking about the government forcing a baker to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in,“gay marriage”.
Non-responsive and fails to address the assertion. Try again:Yet, the First Amendment is.
Constitutional law distinguishes between actual religious beliefs and actions motivated by religious beliefs. The former are almost always exempt from government regulation while the later are subject to government regulation. Simply stated, running a business or baking/selling cakes is not deemed an act of worship under civil law regardless of an individual's belief otherwise.
Non-responsive and fails to address the assertion. Try again:Because of the First Amendment and the nature of THIS case the baker can be who he is.
Lots of things have meaning to people and people can and do hold hold conflicting religious beliefs. That doesn't mean people should be able to pick when or if they wish to comply with any given law.
You have no understanding of the constitution or constitutional law. As a result, your ignorance makes you a liar.Because of the nature of this case (and the institution of marriage) the wedding industry will have to be exempt from accommodation provision, because of the First Amendment of the United States.
If one doesn't wish to comply with applicable laws and business regulations, one is not forced to own or run a business. Owning or running a business is a personal choice, not a constitutional right.No one is claiming they are. But when there is a law that forces an American to support and participate with his/her talents in a institution that he/she doesn’t agree with that is un-Constitutional.
So you think Catholics should be allowed to discriminate against Protestants or Jews or Muslims. Got it.Because of the First Amendment of our Constitution
That's what happens when one's position is based on logic and knowledge rather than ignorance and emotion.… I give you credit for being consistent.
It's sad that you think Christians are above the law and should be able to discriminate against anyone anytime anywhere for any reason.It’s sad that you believe the roll of government is to force persons to use their talents to support and participate in institutions they don’t believe in.