Does that mean legally if I owned property I would have to rent to something I do not consent to? That would also infringe on 1st amendment rights, would it not?
You mean how it’s illegal to not rent on the basis of race, religion or sex?
The frequent argument against ‘protections’ for SSA individuals is that you are protecting a ‘choice’. We don’t protect ‘choices’ according to many, but this is simply not true.
Religion is a choice. We choose to be Catholic. Sure we may have been raised with it, but at some point we chose to follow it once we aged past a certain maturity level.
I realize given your posting history that you don’t believe SSA is a choice, however living with a member of the same sex IS a choice. Just like religion. Would you not rent to a Muslim if you could? A Hindu? An Atheist? Where do you draw the line?
I still won’t “recognize” gay marriage. I will not call a cat a dog. 2 + 2 still equals 4 nothing else.
You don’t have to, if the Church will never recognize me getting married to my fiance I am fully capable of hiring a lawyer to write up a complex document that simulates every single legal aspect of a marriage that is legal in every single state and is not stopped by any amendment or law.
It’s called a contract. A legal partnership to be specific, it’s what lawyers often use. Marriage legally speaking just simplifies all this paperwork into one document.
My solution is to simply completely separate this commingling of legalese and God. Marriage is a religious matter, thus the state should not be involved with it what so ever. Only churches should be able to conduct marriages.
For the legal matters there would be an agreement between the two parties that must be witnessed by a justice of the peace. In every state, that I’m aware of, a priest is by default a justice of the peace, thus all marriage ceremonies double as a legal ceremony automatically with no changes.
This severs the word marriage from the debate, however many activists have no interest in this path. Funny that.
Why? This tells me that they really do want to ‘destroy’ marriage, or at least change it so much as to mean it is destroyed relative to what it was originally.
), but once they legalized gay “marriage”, the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan.
) have been fired for refusing to perform such “marriages”- even those who took office before the law was passed, and even though they retain the right to refuse to marry heterosexual couples if reason exists.