If you want to allow politicians the right to generate new laws to achieve the same protection under the law, adding pork all along the way, you are dimmer than I have given you credit for.I am not denying any gay the right to marry. I point to the fact that the gay relationship is different thereby deserving of its own definition. If gay marriage is what they want then so be it, but it shouldnt infringe on the right of business owner who dont feel their talents are for supporting gay marriage when they only believe in a husband and wife marriage.
The reality remains, that you have failed to indicate any state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between opposite sex couples that would render such a restricted definition constitutional.
Why would any sane person create a second law to guarantee the same legal rights and protections.
Sorry Charlie, the court explained its decision in terms even a child can understand. That you disagree with them does not negate their ruling. You see, their opinion carries the weight of law, yours does not.I have but you chose to ignore it just like the court did. Shall the government start taxing you the same amount of dollars that millionaires pay? Equal protection under the law right?
It really is a fascinating read, and it is quite short.
He is not being forced by the government to support gay marriage. He is being denied the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just as he cannot discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, religion, or any number of other reasons.Why is he being force by government to support gay marriage with his talents? And why is the bar owner in LA exempt?
How does it feel defending other bigots who break the law?
Beside which, his objections make no sense even by the teachings of his own religion. Jesus taught to love your neighbor, forgive even your enemy, to pay unto the government that which is theirs and follow their laws, and not to judge others. In short, his actions are decidedly unchristian.