You're seriously missing something if you think that the Supreme Court is going to rule that a gay couple has a right to walk into a church and be married by a pastor of their choosing.
Churches don't recognize civil marriages or bestow the secular benefits that accompany them, so I fail to see how a church's unwillingness to wed two people in a ceremony is a hindrance to their Constitutional right to getting married.
And what was Hillary Clinton's spokesperson suppose to do? Say "yes" in the face of a First Amendment that obviously protects the free exercise or religion? or say "no" in what could be construed as a negative statement about LGBT rights on what was suppose to be a momentous day for the cause?
The concern trolling is real.
How is a baker's refusal to bake a cake for a gay marriage a hindrance to their Constitutional right to get married? Yet bakers must shut up, bake and deliver gay wedding cakes under penalty of law in some states.
This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?
I'm waiting for the case where a shop refuses to do flowers or a cake for an interracial marriage based on religious grounds. Or a Jewish or (more likely) Muslim marriage based on their bride and groom being unable to accept Jesus Christ as their savior--(the Bible arguably says a
teensy bit more on this subject than homosexuality). Or a Catholic florist that refuses to deal with a divorced couple remarrying.
And yet we don't see those scenarios. At all. I wonder why......
Poll
