But what does it all really mean? What will this mean for religious liberty in this country? Is that officially dead now?
Marriage is a sacrament, a union of a man and a woman in God's name.
Here's a case of a "couple" in the UK suing to force a church to perform their ceremony. Cases like this (win or lose) will pave the way.
Do you think I am wrong?
Yes. Different law, foundation and precedent. The only time you'll see a high court consider outside law is when there's no precedent in our own.
The problem in the US is that far too many people see the Government as a part of the Church.
Gay Marriage now legal in every state. That noise you heard was divorce lawyers everywhere, high fiving
You are actually on the right track of something. Two men are not married, no matter what anybody says. Especially that disgusting pervert John Roberts and John Boehner. May they both rot in hell.
We know.I don't understand you Dispensationalists.
Duh.when moral decline happens, you guys get all upset.
Duh.why do you guys get upset, and try to prevent bad things from happening?
Duh.
Way different ballpark. A baker isn't in the idea of selling a particular ideology to anyone. He's in the business of providing a service and can't deny service absent a legitimate business interest being served (no shoes, no shirt, no service, by way of).
A minister in a church where the product is a particular religious view, wherein homosexuality is in opposition to it, could if pressed (and that pressing is the precedent unlikely to be abridged) simply note that to do so would be to fundamentally work a harm to that product, severing something fundamental to the nature of his business.
Absolutely.
I wonder, though. If marriage for gay couples is now a civil right, wouldn't the refusal to marry a gay couple be seen as violating their civil rights - much like the refusal to marry a bi-racial couple would be?
I suppose you could argue that entropy will eventually have its way. That's one perspective, but I don't share it. I think we've always been an uneven proposition and we'll keep doing our best to level the thing out, likely never quite getting it completely right.
We don't have a state run by any one religion here, which has worked out well enough for every religion here.
You're just being contentious.
It depends on how you approach the aphorism.