I'm confused. Did Rubio double-speak there or is that a misquote?
Here's the thing.
One's rights end when they trample on those of another. That has been the Constitutional history of our country, backed up by over two centuries of case law.
In this case, gay's DEMANDING that those who have a religious / moral objection to their lifestyle, be forced to perform a service that validates that lifestyle against the religious belief holders moral conscience.
What the big gay agenda wants is an end to religious freedom in this country because only then will their choice of lifestyles and behavior no longer have a moral barrier or boundry, or protections for them in the public square.
The issue of gay marriage and special rights for gays is, and always has been a secularist pipe dream to eliminate God from every aspect of American life.
And some people wonder why this nation is in a state of moral decline, and has been for the last 50 years.
Yes!! Thank you!!! WELL SAID!!!
When you read the entire article, you can see that he separated the two:
So, no one here is saying it should be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or at a hotel because of their sexual orientation ...
He went on to say:
But I think the flip side of all of this debate is what about the religious liberties of Americans who do not want to feel compelled by law to provide a catering service or a photography service to a same-sex marriage that their faith teaches is wrong? And — that’s a valid constitutional concern as well.”
What's to be confused about - he was clarifying so he would not be misunderstood.
Having a place cater to a homosexual-specific service (wedding cake, etc.,) can be denied based on religious grounds. If the same homosexuals (or whatever other sex act they may be relating themselves to) just want the same sort of service that anyone else may get (meal in restaurant, cake w/o accolades to a homosexual "wedding", they should not be denied because they are homosexual (or whatever sex act.....).