You’re incorrect in dismissing my assertion which is factually and historically correct.
I have no problem with civil contracts as long as those contracts do not oblige third parties into the service of those engaged in the contract. Think about the Christian photographer that is persecuted by the state for refusing to record a homosexual event that, allegedly in the opinion of the photographer, masquerades as the sacrament of marriage.
Let’s say a homosexual couple decides to purchase a home and throw a party about their joint obligation — should they have the right to sue a photographer that refuses to videotape their party?
“Let’s say a homosexual couple decides to purchase a home and throw a party about their joint obligation — should they have the right to sue a photographer that refuses to videotape their party?”
No.
I think marriage is a legitimate institution which has both civil and religious repercussions. Like having children. There are religious and civil components to that. Marrying, conceiving, rearing, providing and protecting them has a religious implication, but also a civil one.
So I think the state should recognize that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that no one should be sued for refusing business.
That was wrong in more ways than you know. NM Constitution:
Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
I count at least three violations of the state constitution by that incident.
You are being unresponsive. What historical assertion? That marriage was religious first? Well, yeah, since religion, again, predates civil society. So what?
Yes, you do have a problem with civil contracts, like marriage, which you just argued shouldn’t be legal due to the law’s profanity.
As for the photographer, I assume that’s to do with some variety of “discrimination” law, and is neither here nor there.
“Well, yeah, since religion predates civil society”
Or, more to the point, various Christian churches, whose sacrament you’re presumably worried about, predate American law.