[Alas Babylon!]

We lost this fight during the 1960s under the guise of Civil Rights legislation.

Listen, dumb rednecks not allowing blacks to eat in their restaurants was certainly despicable and insulting, but when the government said they HAD to serve them, or anybody, they were no longer THEIR restaurants. The government shouldn’t have made it a matter of law, and I still think laws like that are unconstitutional as they violate free association.

Soon they’ll make the same argument about marrying gays. Priests, reverends and rabbis will HAVE to.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, you have the 1960s history regarding civil rights all wrong. The Federal statute really wasn't aimed at forcing private businesses to treat blacks and whites equally, though that was surely an intended consequence. The real issue was that many states had laws that required private business owners to treat blacks and whites separately -- which is a whole different story.

[JCBreckenridge]

“Soon they’ll make the same argument about marrying gays. Priests, reverends and rabbis will HAVE to.”

That is what they do up in Canada.

[gidget7]

I have been saying for several years that ALL churches should issue edicts that they do not perform civil marriage ceremonies. Churches conduct only ceremonies of Holy Matrimony. Same sex coupling is not holy, what can the govt say about that? Nothing! Catholic Churches do not perform ceremonies for non catholic couples, what is the difference? Seem to me if they7 want to take a stand before they are forced to, that would be the way to go.