You say:
“The ACLU already admitted that it’s a religious objection. The judge unilaterally denied it. The ACLU is crowing that this is a victory for them. So is that following the law or trampling it? Looks like the latter to me.”
the decision says:
“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.” …
And what I said was that the person bringing the case to court has to have a religious lifestyle to prove that his religious beliefs are being violated.
The ACLU is, as usual, wrong. However, you can’t win against them if your religion is not impeccable.
The ACLU is defining religion the way most fat and happy americans define it, not as a day to day living code, but as something to call on if they feel like it.
As critics repeatedly point out, 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control, and 78 percent of Catholics think a “good Catholic” can reject the bishops’ teaching on birth control.Feb 16, 2012
from http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/12/01/pregnant-brides-in-white-dresses/6893
in 1960, only 5 percent of U.S. births were out of wedlock.: today it is nearly 40 percent
You can’t win a moral victory with this kind of cultural practice.
you have to be a practicing faithful in a religion that rejects gay marriage and not in any way adherent to these cultural norms out of teaching with the faith to win against the ACLU
The ACLU fights dirty.
They cannot say that there is no religious argument, but they do. That’s what happens when you go up and then lose against them they rewrite the case.
Watch the cases in which the religious objectors practice the faith.
The ACLU loses and the NYT does not put it on anywhere near the front page
This is a spiritual battle and people think they can practice a life out of touch with religion and win it.
That’s where they are wrong.
Okay; it seems that you are agreeing with my stance at least somewhat. Alinsky presumes that those who live up to their own book of rules will be tripped up by attempting to, but this is a case where such people did so and are being persecuted.
Just because a judge says someone does not have a religious objection does not mean the judge is telling the truth.
It is one thing to cite statistics of people falling away from morality, but to suggest that one give in to the encroaching immorality instead of fighting back, when one is minded to fight back (and thus not falling away) is not a valid religious stance.