[mngran2]

Yes, many churches allow non - parishioner to use their facilities for wedding ceremonies, but it's always the churches' choice. Once again, I ask you, when is the last time you saw, for example, a Catholic church forced to allow a Buddhist (or any other religion's) ceremony to take place (whether the Catholic priest was involved or not) in a Catholic church? When was the last time a church was forced to admit any person it didn't want because of that person's "protected class"?

[messierhunter]

Once again, I ask you, when is the last time you saw, for example, a Catholic church forced to allow a Buddhist (or any other religion's) ceremony to take place (whether the Catholic priest was involved or not) in a Catholic church?

Once again I ask YOU to SHOW US a case of a buddhist suing a catholic church to use their facilities. Furthermore, as stated before, any buddhist attempting to do so makes themselves look insincere about their own religion, removing their religious protection. There's no such thing as a case where religious protection can be cited against another religion because it's impossible to do so sincerely, which is a requirement for religious protection.

When was the last time a church was forced to admit any person it didn't want because of that person's "protected class"?

When was the last time a person in a then-protected class sued a church and lost? It's not up to me to disprove something exists, it's up to you to prove it exists. The government is not going to go out and actively search for cases of discrimination nor should it, it's up to the plaintiff to file suit. Otherwise, the government can (and should) do nothing.