Which gets to the crux of the question. Which has higher precedence, the 1st or the 14th amendments? When does one right enable the trampling of another right? Or is there some Solomon solution that strikes a balance. Something like, the state must allow a gay couple to be married but state can’t force someone to perform the ceremony against the tenants of their faith.
The justices and judges need to think very hard about the consequences of their rulings as their decision can be used against the progressive agenda in a number of ways.
RE: is there some Solomon solution that strikes a balance.
Here’s my humble solution.
If gays want to “marry”, they can.
All they need to do is go to a business establishment or a liberal church that will perform their weddings.
They should not use the government nor should the government allow itself to use FORCE or COERCION to compel people of faith to perform their “weddings” against their conscience.
I wonder what’s so difficult about that.
In a true Constitutional Republic, here can be no conflict: Rights require no 2nd/3rd party to utilize. A nation of Laws (consequences of actions).
Course, that means the 16th/SS/welfare can’t negate the 4th/5th/6th/13th/etc., nor would there exist SS, Welfare....IE: The issue would be moot; as States would tell the Fed to F* off and worry/do their job as delegated.
Yeah, an antiquated notion these days