Actually there is a good body of state laws that draw an equivalence between this and the refusal to serve Blacks in your restaurant. Or let them stay in your motel.
I’m not sure if there is precedent in the Federal courts on the matter, but it’s certain the gay lobby and their political supporters intend to act as if it’s decided law.
And I don’t believe the Federal courts have ever made such a decision.
Except “gay marriage” is a choice. Being black is not.
The equivalence would be if you refused to allow a gay person to sleep at your bed and breakfast. Because it is now “law” that being “gay” is not a choice. (I simply argue that acting as a gay person is a choice, and avoid the problem).
Actually there is a good body of state laws that draw an equivalence between this and the refusal to serve Blacks in your restaurant. Or let them stay in your motel
Exactly. And those state laws all come from anti-discrimination laws at the federal level. I believe it is title VII of the civil rights act of 1964, which simple does away with the right of free association. It should have been ruled unconstitutional under the ninth amendment 50 years ago.
Governments can be forced not to discriminate, because there is no free association in the government. But private businesses and individuals should not. It is the height of tyranny.
I hope someone would find a difference between serving someone in a restaurant vs refusing to rent your property out for religious rites that contradict your own beliefs
There are many accommodations available to homosexual ceremonies not like the plaintiffs were denied their rights
” emotional distress” now means stompy feet